Turkish interference A peaceful Ashura - Soma Digest

Issue no.19 Feb 8 - 23, 2007
Instead of waiting for the Americans to resolve the Kurdish problem,
the Kurds will have to assume a more pro-active role in determining
their own political survival.
Dr Denise Natali
ERBIL
When the Iraqi Study Group
(ISG) issued its report in
December 2006, most Kurds
reacted with shock and anger at what
appeared to be another “American betrayal”.
After having acted as a reliable ally in
the war on terror, fighting side by side
with the United States military in overthrowing
Saddam Hussein, and compromising
Kurdish nationalism for a federalist
solution, the Kurds expected to be
rewarded for their political fidelity.
Instead, they were seconded to Arab and
Turkish nationalist influences, leaving the
Kurdistan region, once again, at the
mercy of hostile regional neighbors and
so-called international allies.
Many now worry about the impact of
the shift in American tactics in Iraq on the
Kurdistan region and wonder if the Kurds
will be sold out once again.
Yet, the real problem for the Kurds is
not their unknown fate, but rather, their
ill-preparedness for it. Why are most
Kurds, including the political elite, still
taken by surprise by US policy decisions
that impact the Kurdistan Region?
A brief overview of key American
strategic choices in Iraq shows an unambiguous
pattern of supporting regional
neighbors and the central government
over Kurdish nationalist interests. The
1975 US-brokered Algiers Agreement led
to the collapse of the Kurdish revolution
against the Iraqi government and mass
exodus of over 250,000 Kurds to Iran.
The US-supported the Baathist government
and Saddam Hussein during the following
decade, even after the Anfal campaign
that caused the destruction of over
4,000 Kurdish villages and deaths of
about 150,000 Kurds. In 1991, after having
encouraged a mass uprising against
the Iraqi regime, the US abandoned the
Kurds again at the hands of Saddam,
resulting in another mass exodus of more
than two million Kurds to the mountainous
border regions.
Nor has there been any real change in
American policy toward Iraqi Kurds since
2003. The US mission in Iraq is not centered
on protecting Kurdish autonomy,
but rather, ensuring stability in the region
by rooting out the seeds of terrorism and
instilling democratic institutions and values.
The Bush administration’s “new way
forward” has introduced tactics that
involve searching and seizing foreign militants
inside Iraqi territory, increasing US
WAITING FOR AMERICA
troop strength, and mobilizing Kurdish
militia to southern and central Iraq.
For the Kurdistan Region, it has led to
the seizure of five Iranians working at the
consulate in Erbil, increasing tensions
between Iraqi Kurds and Iran, closure of
the Iranian border, and Kurdish troop
defections stationed in Baghdad.
Indeed, the US has provided important
financial, political, and security support to
the Kurds, without which the Kurdistan
region could not have developed or sustained
its nationalist agenda over the past
15 years. It has also refused to succumb to
Turkish government pressures to postpone
the Kirkuk referendum in December
2007, pushing forward the implementation
of article 140 of the Iraqi constitution.
For the first time in modern Iraq history,
the Kurds have a real chance of legally
reclaiming Kirkuk.
Still, the US government continues to
emphasize national reconciliation, winning
the war on terror, and the nature and
size of US troops. No long term guarantee
of Kurdish autonomy has been made.
The Bush administration may have
rejected most of the ISG recommendations,
however; it continues to encourage
Sunni Arab influence in the central government,
giving Saudi Arabia an increasing
role in Iraqi affairs.
The US Congress, now dominated by
opposition democrats, is highly critical of
President Bush’s plan for additional US
troops and is pushing for American military
withdrawal from the Iraqi quagmire,
while encouraging the recentralization of
the Baghdad government. And even if a
referendum is conducted in Kirkuk, US
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
recently affirmed that the Kurds will have
no final authority over current or future
oil discovered in their region.
These political decisions and trends are
not a signal of American betrayal, but
rather, a wake up call for the Kurds that
US support is not obligatory, permanent,
or unconditional.
Despite the progress made in the
Kurdistan Region and the Kurdish-
American alliance, there is reason to
believe that the US will assure Sunni Arab
and/or Turkish nationalist interests over
Kurdish ones. This possibility will
become increasingly likely as the 2008
presidential elections approach, and the
Iraq war - or ways to disengage from the
country - becomes central to the election
campaign.
Thus, just as the US is rethinking its
policy on Iraq, so too, must the KRG
renegotiate its strategies, alliance struc-
VIEWS| EDITORIALS
COMMENTARY
&
tures, and forms of leverage. The Kurdish
elite must create a ‘plan B’ as an alternative
path to ensuring Kurdish autonomy
in the long term. This option can include
strengthening ties to lobbies such as
Jewish, Greek, and Armenian groups with
strong influence in the US Congress,
decreasing economic dependence on
regional states, generating alternative
sources of income, reformulating budget
allocations, and lessening local populations’
dependencies on the KRG.
Certainly, the geopolitically unfavorable,
landlocked, and non-sovereign
nature of the Kurdistan Region requires
concessions with foreign governments,
regional states, and non-state actors.
Still, the Kurdistan Region is far too
dependent upon Baghdad and its neighbors
for economic and political survival.
Nearly all consumer goods and food
products are imported from Turkey.
Approximately 95 percent of KRG revenues
are derived from the Iraqi central
government, 64 percent of which are
spent on public salaries in the Kurdistan
Region. Any border closure or budget cut
will directly impact the daily lives of local
populations, as well as the future stability,
viability, and development of the
Kurdistan Region.
It is therefore vital that the Kurdish elite
lower their expectations of what the
Americans should deliver, reduce their
dependency on external aid, and increase
reliance on capabilities inside the
Kurdistan Region.
Instead of waiting for the Americans to
resolve the Kurdish problem, the Kurds
will have to assume a more proactive role
in determining their own political survival.
If these necessary preparations are
not made then local populations are likely
to be taken by surprise once again,
although this time they will have a lot
more to lose than they did 15 years ago.
Dr. Denise Natali is an honorary fellow
at the Institute for Arab and
Islamic Studies, Exeter University
and currently teaching at the department
of politics and international
relations, the University of
Kurdistan-Hewler. She is the author
of The Kurds and the State:
Evolving National Identity in Iraq,
Turkey, and Iran (Syracuse:
Syracuse University Press, 2005),
and The Kurdish-Quasi State:
Development and Dependency in
Post-Gulf War Iraq (Syracuse:
Syracuse University Press, forthcoming).
Men who build nations
DEMOCRACY IN
IRAQ
DR JOSEPH KECHICHIAN
Because great ideas are often associated
with great men (and
women), one is always looking
for such figures in countries faced with
immense challenges. Most of the world
experienced devastating periods
throughout history, but a few managed
to reach states of relative freedom and
prosperity. Japan, for example, was
annihilated after World War II but
emerged as a beacon of liberty in Asia.
France and Germany were equally burdened
but somehow successfully shed
the past for optimized liberties. Even
the United States, that witnessed a particularly
vicious civil war, materialized
into an envied society. Will Iraq follow
in their footsteps?
The single most critical ingredient in
all such examples, is the quality of leaders
that somehow knew how to channel
misery into effective sacrifice. Japan
never lost sight of how a dejected
Emperor saved the Chrysanthemum
throne when he accepted a system of
government that stood in direct opposition
to principles of absolute monarchy.
Without Charles De Gaulle and
Konrad Adenauer, neither France nor
Germany would be what they are
today: the very symbols of human
majesty. Without Thomas Jefferson,
Abraham Lincoln, and John F.
Kennedy, the United States might be
nothing more than a relatively isolated
country perpetually mired in internal
conflicts.
In the case of Abraham Lincoln, the
President who fought and won a Civil
War, the futility of the latter was all too
apparent without genuine reconciliation.
His “Gettysburg Address,” written
a day before it was delivered on 19
November 1863 to dedicate the
National Cemetery in Pennsylvania, is
worth reading often:
“Four score and seven years ago our
fathers brought forth on this continent,
a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and
dedicated to the proposition that all
men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil
war, testing whether that nation, or any
nation so conceived and so dedicated,
can long endure. We are met on a great
battlefield of that war. We have come to
dedicate a portion of that field, as a final
resting place for those who here gave
their lives that that nation might live. It
is altogether fitting and proper that we
should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we cannot
dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we
cannot hallow, this ground. The brave
9
men, living and dead, who struggled
here, have consecrated it, far above our
poor power to add or detract. The world
will little note, nor long remember what
we say here, but it can never forget
what they did here. It is for us the living,
rather, to be dedicated here to the
unfinished work which they who
fought here have thus far so nobly
advanced. It is rather for us to be here
dedicated to the great task remaining
before us, that from these honored dead
we take increased devotion to that
cause for which they gave the last full
measure of devotion, that we here highly
resolve that these dead shall not have
died in vain, that this nation, under
God, shall have a new birth of freedom,
and that government of the people, by
the people, for the people, shall not perish
from the earth.”
Every word of this speech is applicable
to Iraq. Some readers will conclude
that Iraq and the United States, the periods
of time, the levels of political maturity
and countless other differences
make the comparison inaccurate. Yet, a
careful reading of history will indicate
that while there were many differences,
there were also similarities. Many
mocked Lincoln as a poor leader and
far too many blame various Iraqis.
Jingoistic Americans hurled ugly slogans
onto their political opponents as
many chauvinistic Iraqis monopolize
patriotism and deny it to their brethren.
Yet, as the poet Josiah Gilbert
Holland so aptly wrote in his “God
Give Us Men” poem:
A time like this demands
Strong minds, great hearts, true faith
and ready hands;
Men whom the lust of office does
not kill;
Men whom the spoils of office can
not buy;
Men who possess opinions and a
will;
Men who have honor; men who will
not lie;
Men who can stand before a demagogue
And damn his treacherous flatteries
without winking!
Tall men, sun-crowned, who live
above the fog
In public duty, and in private thinking;
For while the rabble, with their
thumb-worn creeds,
Their large professions and their little
deeds,
Mingle in selfish strife, lo! Freedom
weeps,
Wrong rules the land and waiting
Justice sleeps.
God give us men;
Men who serve not for selfish booty;
But real men, courageous, who
flinch not at duty.
Men of dependable character;
Men of sterling worth;
Then wrongs will be redressed, and
right will rule the earth.
God Give us Men!
Iraq today needs men who will
know how to harness the energies of
their hapless population, to ensure that
those who sacrificed did not die in vain,
and who can dedicate themselves to
creating stability, wealth and prosperity.