Author Archives: admin

Upcoming Kurdistan elections set to spark shift in political horizon

Leave a reply

Kurdistan is no stranger to holding parliamentary elections since it was free from the clutches of Baghdad, but the legislative elections set for 21st September 2013 provide a different flavour for a number of reasons.

The electoral climate is tense, the passions are as elated as above, the stakes are high for the political parties involved but above all else it is the uncertainty at the polls that is most intriguing, placing Kurdistan at a critical juncture.

The tense battle for the 100 seats on offer (11 are reserved for minorities) is set to change the political landscape of Kurdistan.

This is due to a number of factors. Firstly, in an unprecedented step, the ruling parties will run on separate lists swaying from their traditional power–sharing agreements. This is a positive step for the democratic evolvement of Kurdistan and means that the KDP and PUK have to fight their own respective corners, the strength of both sides will be clear to gauge and ultimately no side will need to “carry” the other.

The second key area is whether the Change Movement (Goran) can better the 25 seats it managed to achieve in 2009, particularly at the expense of the PUK in their traditional Sulaimaniya stronghold. Jockeying for votes in Sulaimaniya province has been as fierce as 2009 and the outcome will transform the destiny of either party. Finally, elections will be held under a semi-open electoral system.

Kurdistan finds itself with a new and expectant generation who are harder to appease and demand more from the government. The government has been under pressure to tackle corruption, provide reforms, improve public services, ensure transparency and afford more opportunities for the youth. The election battle will hinge on undecided voters – have the ruling parties made good on their promises in the last 4 years and made enough progress on well-documented areas of improvement and if the voters believe otherwise, are they convinced that Goran can take Kurdish politics to the new level?

The advent of a strong opposition party was a boost for democracy in the Kurdistan Region.  The parliamentary sessions may have been much tenser, squabbling more common place and political agreements less straightforward, but Kurdistan needed the angle of political rivalry and less certain decision making. A firm opposition also ups the political ante and ensures ruling powers are not complacent.

However, despite the lofty electoral goals they have set, doubts remain whether Goran can step up from an opposition force to a new force ready for governance and legislative authority.

The current elections will also be unique for the uncertainty not just before the polls but also long after it. This makes coalitions, compromises and negotiations all the more delicate. It is unlikely that any party will assume enough votes to form a government alone.

The Islamic parties, who attained 10 seats in 2009 are likely to increase on this figure. Although, much of the talk of future governments has resided on the ruling parties and Goran, the seats of the Islamic parties will provide a key angle to the political makeshift of parliament.

 

The KDP may still attain the most votes with a core support base in Duhok and Erbil and with their dominant mark on the political, economic and strategic map of Kurdistan, but it will need to work with the PUK or Goran in forming a new government.

Due to wider spread of seats, even a coalition between the PUK, Goran and other opposition forces to form a new cabinet cannot be discounted.

Without the figurehead of their historic leader, Jalal Talabani, and the safety net of the KDP, the PUK is most exposed and the elections may well prove a turning point for the party.

When the number of seats is more balanced and distributed more tightly, this makes future coalitions more fragile and may lead to political instability. The idea of a government that includes all parties makes sense on paper but will be difficult to maintain in reality. The relationship between Goran and the ruling parties since 2009 has hardly been a rosy affair.

No matter the election outcome, politicians and political parties must not lose perspective of their ultimate duty of serving Kurds and Kurdistan.

Political competiveness, disagreements and tension is fine to a certainty extent, but it must not jeopardise unity or weaken the Kurdish hand in an already volatile region. Kurds have much left to achieve at home and abroad, narrow-minded party interests must not compromise the Kurdish hand at a critical historical juncture for Kurds and the Middle East.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc

The Kurdish angle a paramount part of any Middle Eastern debate

Leave a reply

The much heralded “Arab Spring” has swiftly morphed into an Arab nightmare. The successive lauded popular uprisings across the Middle East were to an extent only the end of the beginning and not a quick-fire solution to the complex network of Middle Eastern disputes.

The aftermath of the Arab Spring has been far bloodier, protracted and troublesome than many expected. The new Middle Eastern horizon has brought with it new crises and new rules. One in which the US and the West are struggling to take a view on.

The uprising in Syria has unearthed a deadly civil war that has directly or indirectly sucked in most players of the Middle East. The short-lived euphoria over the ousting of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt has been replaced by social turmoil and a deep-rooted battle over political Islam that threatens to send Egypt into full blown conflict. The removal of Colonel Gaddafi in Libya was seen as reality straightforward by the West but his removal has witnessed more instability and violence. In Tunisia, an oppositional leader has been assassinated in renewed friction.

All the while in Iraq, sectarian violence threatens to return to levels not seen since the peak of 20007.

The rapid plunging of the Middle East into conflict has drawn many analysts to the roots of conflict, the role of Western powers in sowing the seeds of today’s strife in the aftermath of the First World War and historical vendettas.

But while typically the arguments point to the artificial boundaries of Middle East and sectarian fault-lines, the greatest travesty of the Middle East is often ignored – the failure to give the Kurds, the fourth largest nation in the Middle East, a nation of their own.

Too often the recent Middle Eastern fault lines are ascribed to Sunni-Shiite sectarian conflict and secular versus political Islam; somewhat replacing the old focus on the Arab-Israeli struggle.

Conflicts in Syria and Iraq are narrowed to sectarianism. The polarisation of Turkey is generalised as between Islamists and those who uphold the mystical secular foundations of the republic.

Yet it is the selfish and ruthless carving of the Kurdish lands that will always serve as a critical destabilisation factor in the Middle East. The ethnic angle of the Middle Eastern conflict is not just between Jews and Arabs. It’s a travesty that in the 21st century that the Kurds have the unfortunate distinction of been the largest nation without a state.

It’s remarkable that the Kurds have to struggle for even “minority” rights in the lands of the forefathers, yet so much of the world’s focus is on Arab strife and Islamist positioning in governance. The Arabs view the lack of a 22nd state in Palestine as a great injustice whilst the Kurds are often viewed suspiciously or as overreaching when seeking rights. This sums up why equitable dealing of arguments or disputes is non-starter in the Middle East.

Syria is viewed as a confrontation between the Alawite minority and Sunni majority, whilst the Kurds who were roped into the state boundaries are often overlooked.

The redrawing of the Middle Eastern map is not just a necessity but a natural unravelling that would always happen at some point. Iraq is the starting point for such unravelling, with Kurds finally able demonstrate strategic and political clout in terms of new geography.

Yes, the new Middle East is hardly the advert for harmony and communal peace, but all that has been done is to let the cat out of the bag. All the problems and ingredients for conflict where always there, but they were caged and held tightly by dictatorial regimes supported by the West.

The Middle East is at an acute cross road, unfortunately with players intent on resolving differences the region knows all too well – conflict.

Ironically, as the West has found out bitterly in Iraq and Egypt, democracy and religion is not always the perfect tonic. What happens when the people select a party or system of government that the West never wants or fears?

It will take decades for the dust from the new Middle East to settle, but contained for so long it won’t be easy for such a crisis zone filled with high emotion, history and natural resources to take its new shape.

But let there be no doubt – the Kurdish question is central to any prospects of real peace and stability in the new Middle East.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc

Chilling echoes of Halabja in Syria as the world watches on

Leave a reply

The tragic and deplorable chemical attack on Damascus on 21st August 2013 by the Syrian regime brought echoes of the unforgettable Halabja massacre in 1988. Over 5000 innocent Kurdish civilians dropped where they were in an attack that crossed all boundaries, with thousands more injured and suffering life-long ailments.

Yet, as the shocking as the chemicals attacks are in Syria, some of the world looks on with doubt that Bashar al-Assad’s regime would perpetrate such action, even accusing the rebels of “fabricating” the event pointing to the timing of the attacks with UN weapons inspectors having just arrived in the country on their long awaited mandate, mere miles from the affected zone.

But a dictatorship is just that, it will not stop at nothing to cling to power or realize narrow minded goals. Terror is a rule not an exception. More importantly, why would the Syrian regime hoard some of the largest chemical weapon stockpiles in the world if it was afraid to use them? The US and most EU powers have already confirmed the use of chemical weapons by the regime during the bitter conflict.

Going back to Halabja, the West knew very well the chemical might and arsenal of Saddam, after all they were his allies against Tehran. Saddam’s forces reverted to chemical weapons on a number of occasions to desperately repel advancing Iranian forces. The regime had already destroyed thousands of Kurdish villages, terrorized the Kurdish population and committed mass murder, why would they hesitate at other means to annihilate the Kurds?

However, strategic interests of the West at times play a more crucial role in foreign policy than real justice or protection of human rights. In the aftermath of the Halabja massacre, Western governments and media were initially muted. The US intelligence agencies even blamed Iran for the Halabja attack. Ironically, Halabja was used 15 years later by the US and the coalition to justify the overthrow of Saddam.

In Syria, the ever thick and moving “red line” of US President Barrack Obama has been crossed many times. However, Washington has done all it can to avoid becoming embroiled in the complex Syrian conflict.

The fact that the Syrian regime would even contemplate such attacks speaks volumes about their perceived threat of international intervention. This sets an even more dangerous precedent for other so called “rogue states” keeping a close eye on Western response.

If the US and its EU allies finally act, it would be because they are dragged and shoved unwillingly than any real passion for action. Over 100,000 have already died and human suffering in Syria has become an acceptable norm without any concrete international response.

Of course, the dangers of regional spillover will intensify with any Western military response and the risk of an uncertain and Islamist led post-Assad Syria hardly soothes Western hesitancy, but one must place politics, sectarianism and strategic interests firmly to one side when hundreds of innocent children are suffocating to death under toxic gases.

If the Syrian regime has a grain of credibility left then it must urgently allow UN inspectors access to the scene. If they are innocent, then what have they to hide?

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc

Syrian Kurdish anguish a burden for all parts of Kurdistan

Leave a reply

In the face of deadly battles between Syrian Kurdish forces and Jabat al-Nusra and other Islamist forces in Western Kurdistan, Kurdish civilians have suffered brutal reprisal attacks and murder across a number of Kurdish towns and villages.

The neighbourhoods of Tel-Abeyd, Sere Kaniye, Tel- Aran and Tel- Hasel amongst others across Kurdish populated areas have been the subject of kidnappings, killings, lootings and terror.

The Kurdish areas have been relatively quiet since the Syrian uprising began but the latest developments not only serve to deepen the conflict between al-Qaeda affiliates and Kurds but increasingly pitch an ethnic battle between Kurds and Arabs, opening another theatre and dimension in the already complex conflict.

The Syrian National Council (SNC) and its leader Ahmed Jabra, as a legally recognised body and the supposed flag bearer for freedom, democracy and the fight against tyranny, has to shoulder the responsibility to condemn the attacks, protect Kurds and ensure Kurds are enticed into the political fold and not alienated in the fight against the Syrian regime.

However, the stance of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and elements of the SNC have hardly taking kindly to the Kurds. They have failed to address the general mistrust and anxiety of the Kurds and have looked at Kurdish gains with great suspicion.

With so many players on the Syrian chessboard, the recent conflict between Islamist forces and Kurds has seen a number of foreign powers weigh into the equation.

It was hardly surprising and somewhat ironic that Russia and Iran were quick to highlight the massacre of Kurds to the world, but this is chiefly in their quest to discredit the Syrian revolution and show the world the dark side of the opposition than any for any true affection for the Kurds. Iran and Russia were distinctively quiet whilst Kurds were persecuted for decades in Syria.

By the same token, the U.S. and its E.U. and regional allies have been rather muted and cautious in the face of the atrocities as it seemingly serves as an embarrassment for the pro-opposition camps and specifically for some Arab states and Turkey that have supported such groups to varying degrees.

In the face of Syrian Kurdish isolation and despair, the statement last week by Kurdistan President Massaud Barzani condemning atrocities and vowing to support Syrian Kurds,  was welcome, bold and the just the tonic to stir sentiment and any notion that Kurds will be bystanders amidst the plight of their ethnic brethren.

Barzani had warned that “If the reports are true, showing that citizens, women and the children of innocent Kurds are under threat from murder and terrorism, Iraq’s Kurdistan region will make use of all of its capabilities to defend women and children and innocent citizens.”

For too long, the forcibly divided Kurds have struggled for national rights within the constraints of localised mechanisms than as a national force or coherent ethnic group. It has become too easy and politically correct to label each portion of Kurdistan with a Syrian, Turkish, Iraqi or Iranian prefix.

The lands may be artificially divided but a fence, border post or de-facto delineation of territory doesn’t change the soil composition, geography, nature or heritage of territory. Do the border fences that randomly separate Nusaybin or Qamishli actually mean that the historic land, the people, or the families on either side are any different?

If there is a massacre of Turkmens in Iraq tomorrow, will Turkey remain idle? Sunni states and Gulf countries flocked to support Sunni rebels in Syria while Hezbollah and Iran rushed to support their Shiite brethren.

Why should Kurds across greater Kurdistan remain idle? The crucial step by Barzani was to ensure a delegation was formed by the Kurdish National Conference Preparation Committee from members across greater Kurdistan – this national response demonstrates a common voice and a united stand but almost underscores the seeds for a Kurdish League.

Washington amongst others was quick to warn Barzani against intervention and it is not clear what measures will be taken by the Kurdistan Region if the current delegation visiting Syrian Kurdistan bring back conclusive proof of massacres and atrocities against Syrian Kurds.

No doubt the Kurdistan Region leadership will warn and increase pressure on the West to act and intervene, but if the response is negative then the leadership must match rhetoric with action.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc

Ankara must embrace new Syrian Kurdish reality

Leave a reply

A year after Syrian Kurds took historic control of their territory, proposed plans for an autonomous Syrian Kurdistan region sent fresh shivers down Ankara.

Any anxiety towards the establishment of de facto autonomy for Kurds is amplified all the more by the PKK connections with the dominant Democratic Union Party (PYD) that exercises the greatest political and military influence in the region.

Turkey has fought a bitter 3 decade war with the PKK and to see PYD flags proudly hosted atop buildings clearly visible from Turkish soil was difficult to stomach. Turkey rushed to kick-start the peace process with the PKK and Ocalan in the full knowledge that they could soon be swamped with PKK forces enjoying not just mountain passes but theoretically an autonomous area.

However, a dose of reality is greatly needed if Turkey is to achieve its strategic and political goals, away from out-dated ethos or phobias. In the same manner that red-lines, ubiquitous threats and harsh rhetoric towards Iraqi Kurds was in the end replaced with a revised policy and ultimately a strong and flourishing political and economic relations with Kurdistan.

Last year, Ankara refused to even engage or acknowledge the PYD. The historic visit to Turkey by Saleh Muslim, leader of the PYD, in this regard, was certainly a step in the right direction, but Turkey must start to warm to the Kurds and the new political order rather than antagonise them or even choose sides, as many have claimed of their indirect support of Islamists against the Kurds.

The People’s Defense Units (YPG), widely acknowledged as the armed-wing of the PYD, has been pitched in fierce battles with Jabat al-Nusra and other al-Qaeda affiliated groups for months. However, fierce battles in recent weeks saw the Kurds gain control of the strategic border town of Ras al-Ayn amongst others.

Muslim was warned in Ankara against taking “wrong and dangerous” by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and intelligence chiefs.  Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu also warned the Kurds against any “fait accompli” declarations that would further destabilise and complicate Syria until an elected Parliament is formed in Syria

Ironically, in the same week Ahmet Davutoğlu denounced radical groups, some whom Turkey has supported, for “betraying” the principles of the Syrian revolution.

In spite of the relative positivity in the aftermath of Muslim’s visit, Turkey should have done much more to reach out and entice the Kurds from the outset and worked to include them as vital components of the Syrian opposition and the drive to oust Assad, rather than the frosty treatment and Syrian opposition’s failure to provide firm guarantees to Kurds in the post Assad era.

Stuck between Arabs they didn’t trust, Islamists intent on setting up a base in Syrian Kurdistan with its vital borders crossings and oil resources and a Turkish government ever-wary of more Kurdish leverage and power on their border, Kurds largely leant towards the devil they knew – Assad.

The reality is that Syrian Kurds, with renewed vigour and standing, are not about to go away, with or without Assad. The resurgence of the Syrian Kurds and potential autonomy should if anything be just the tonic to kick-start the peace process in Turkey.

If Turkey fails to implement the peace process in Turkey, then the PKK leverage would always have been a greater hand in Syrian Kurdistan or even a derailing of Ankara goals in the Syrian revolution.

For the Kurds, it is natural to try and preserve their region from violence and destruction and certainly the population has needs and warrant a system of governance. Any attempts at autonomy, temporary or not, is a logical move, however, the region must be for all Kurdish groups and not specially the PYD.

All Kurdish groups must be represented and the people must ultimately decide on their governance. Any unilateral drive by the PYD to assert control or use force for it its aims will severely diminish the legitimacy of the new Kurdistan Region of Syria.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc

West must act in Syria for sake of humanity or face a history of ignominy

Leave a reply

The tables have drastically turned in the Syria conflict in recent months and Western inaction and indecisiveness has played a significant part.

The U.S. and its European allies have failed the Syrian people and to make matters worse, western diplomats are still bickering internally on how they should respond to the Syrian conflict, when they have had 2.5 years to formulate an approach.

Infamous red-lines have long been crossed, dozens of cities lie in rubble, over 100,000 dead and millions displaced with the rate increasing all the time. Yet the West is still plagued by unease and uncertainty on its moral obligations.

As the Syrian civil war has festered and   decayed, more divisive western policy at the outset would have achieved a far quicker political transition, saved thousands of lives, infrastructure and untold suffering.

Now the conflict has become so messy that even the West is startled to respond. A great example is the proposal to arm selected members of the Free Syrian Army (FSA). Both Great Britain and France petitioned vehemently for months to end the EU arms embargo in May. Now that they have gotten their wish, they have got frosty feet. Likewise the US announced intent to supply weapons in mid-June after acknowledging that Bash al-Assad had crossed a red-line (the same murky red line that Assad had passed long ago), yet there are no signs of supplies.

The conflict has become so complex and cloudy that Western powers do not believe that their “light” weaponry would make any different. Yet ironically, Russia and Iran have been arming Assad to the teeth with no remorse.

In the time that the West has stood idle, Syrian has become the battleground for who’s who of Jihadists and foreign fighters. The war is no longer about ousting Assad and freeing Syria from dictatorship, it is now heavily sectarian and to a certain extent a proxy battle for a new Cold War with Russia, Iran and China.

With Hezbollah arms deep in supporting Assad, al-Qaeda spear-heading the rebel onslaught, even the Taliban looking to enter the fray,  and add Lebanese, Iranian and Iraqi factions into the mix, Syria has become an even more entrenched minefield.

With Assad fighting back, the rebels literally fighting each other, Islamist forces battling Kurdish fighters and Geneva mark 2 becoming an ever distant mirage, the short-term prospects are bleak.

But the world must forget sectarianism, the new Cold war arena or those jockeying for regional power. The Western powers and the United Nations must act for the sake of humanity if nothing else.

When will enough deemed enough? Just how will history look back on the West and particularly the UN which has been an all but paralysed bystander?

By the time sane powers intervene, there will be little to intervene for. What will Syrians do with no economy, destroyed communities, homes in rubble and their currency worthless?

 

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc

Political crisis must not compromise ultimate mission of serving Kurds and greater Kurdistan

Leave a reply

Gripped by quarrels, division and uncertainty, the past few months has hardly been a golden period for Kurdish politics.

However, the prospect of parliamentary and presidential elections against the backdrop of a bitter dispute between ruling parties and the opposition over the draft Kurdish constitution which if passed would have allowed Massaud Barzani to serve another 2 terms as President, threatened to severely deepen the political and social divide.

Kurdistan is currently surrounded by regional and sectarian turmoil in Syria, Iraq and Turkey and the last thing it needs is greater disunity or a crisis of its own that would consume much of its energy internally at a critical juncture in its history.

The upcoming elections would certainly serve as a critical gauge for KDP, PUK and Gorran. Any pre-election public outcry, anger or propaganda could easily sway voters. For the KDP and especially with the greater Kurdistan project in full swing, at the current time any president other than Barzani would be unacceptable.

For the PUK, who has seen its votes dwindle since 2009 when Gorran took ascendancy and with the illness to Jalal Talabani increasing visibility of intra-party divide, the next elections are a vital gauge. At a sensitive time, it needs the help of its old-ally in the KDP and thus a strategic deal with the KDP in the current political climate was win-win.

For Gorran, the next elections could either make or break the movement. Whilst it secured a respectable number of votes in 2009, it is not certain whether it can sustain or increase the current voter base. Much of it hinges on the public perception of the ruling parties particularly the PUK and whether those who switched allegiance from PUK to Gorran in 2009 believe that Gorran has delivered sufficiently.

Gorran’s best bet is a public uproar or a political crisis that works against the ruling parties. Certainly there has already been plenty of emotion, animosity and divide to stir tensions in Kurdistan and polarise society.

It was no surprise amidst acute tensions between the opposition and the ruling parties in the past several months that the decision by the Kurdistan parliament to extend the current parliamentary session for two months and specifically to extend the term of Massoud Barzani’s presidency by two years would generate a new storm.

Even the parliamentary session was engulfed with bitter tension and fist-cuffs between rival politicians.

The decision by parliament that was ratified by Barzani creates yet more ingredients for political hostility. Any subsequent protests or public discontent will only raise the stakes.

With no imminent deal in-sight over the constitution, the ruling parties viewed this as best way to maneuverer out of an even greater crisis.

By extending Barzani’s term by two years, KDP get their wish of retaining Barzani at a critical time and PUK are provided some breathing space to politically re-arm ahead of a critical battle with Gorran at the upcoming polls. Of course, in return for their support in extending Barzani’s term as president, the PUK will expect help in kind in retaining the Iraqi presidency.

It also soothes those in the PUK circles who were in favour of amending the constitution.

With the PUK and KDP running on separate lists and with much political jockeying and hurdles around the corner, the next elections remains the game changer for the Kurdish political landscape.

Whilst the parliamentary move will hardly appease all parties, it was deemed the best out of a series of difficult options. It affords some breathing space to strike a consensus on the constitution which if put to a referendum on the eve of elections as originally planned would have almost certainly handicapped Kurdistan politically.

With talk of Gorran, KDP, PUK and other parties, it is very easy to miss the bigger picture. All political parties and politicians are voted solely to serve the Kurds who voted for them and greater Kurdistan. It is important that party agendas do not sway away from the greater needs of Kurdistan.

Kurdistan has grown in strategic and economic power but is still shrouded by disputes with Baghdad, vital energy projects unfinished and a regional flame that is intensifying by the day.

In this light and in the absence of true rivals with broad national support, Barzani remains the key figure and leader for the Kurds.

However, at the same time, democracy entails that no person is indispensable and more importantly beyond the two years any extension must strictly be in the form of legislature voted in by the people.

Either way, as much as politicians can compromise, consult or wrangle, it is the people on the ground that should ultimately decide who governs and how they would like to be governed.

 

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc.

Death of Kurdish protestor adds fuel to Turkish fire

Leave a reply

In last week’s column, the sensitivity of Turkey’s Kurdish peace process and the accompanying democratic initiative was highlighted with a warning that single-bullet can unravel months or years of gains.

The highly unfortunate death of Medeni Yildirim, caught up as protests in Lice near Diyarbakir against the building of a new Turkish military outpost grew violent, is just the kind of spark that can ignite greater strife.

As the recent Arab Spring has highlighted, youths spraying anti-government graffiti, a man setting himself alight or local show of discontent, is all it takes to light the touch paper.

In a similar vein, Turkish anti-government protests have slowly snowballed. The problem with such highly-publicized protests in front of thousands of international cameras is that the government has a small window of opportunity to respond delicately and swiftly. One wrong move, the slightest overreaction or use of force and the smallest of controversial political rhetoric and the situation quickly blossoms into an unmanageable crisis where even if the protests later die down, the government never comes out unscathed.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has enjoyed a decade in power and his achievements, widely acclaimed in Turkey and beyond, are in danger of been eroded.

A year ago, the long disenchanted and marginalized Kurds would have jumped at the opportunity to pour fuel on anti-government protests, a perennial role usually reserved for them. In a twist of irony, the Kurdish south east has been quiet whilst the west of the country has been embroiled in mass protests that have served to polarize and destabilize Turkey.

The Kurdish position is owed to renewed hope and expectation that the Kurdish conflict can be peacefully resolved and that Kurds can finally move away from playing second-fiddle under Turkey’s ultra nationalist foundations.

An encouraging and welcome sign was the protests and outcry that erupted amongst Turks in Istanbul in solidarity with the Kurds over the death of Medeni Yildirim.

The governments violent response in Lice and the growing Kurdish frustration with their lack of impetus in implementing legal steps and reform as part of the peace process, adds more pressure on the government.

The Kurdish south-east has been at its most peaceful in almost 3 decades. Recently, Erdogan was quick to emphasise that the peace process will not be affected by Gezi Park protests, and the two issues have been largely separated.

Managing ever rising expectations is a tough task. Although, many AKP initiatives in resolving the age old Kurdish dilemma were unprecedented, Kurdish expectations have outpaced the piece-meal nature of Turkish concessions.

A stone-throw away lays a prosperous, flourishing and autonomous Kurdistan Region. To the south, even their Syrian brethren are finally rid of the clutches of tyranny.

Why should the long supressed Turkish Kurds measuring such a large segment of society and in a country with EU aspirations and hailed for its democratic principles, continue to settle for less than their legal entitlement?

It is even more ironic that Turks in West of Turkey in living standards, economic conditions and social infrastructure far beyond those of the Kurds complain about the increasing authoritarian nature of Erdogan’s rule and anti-democratic measures.

Imagine the stance of the Kurds who have suffered greatly since the 1920’s under systematic repression, left to endure second class status and lacked at times even the basic of rights.

Perhaps the newfound and much welcome solidarity between Turks and Kurds is a reflection of that irony.

His image may be tarnished, but not all is lost for Erdogan and the AKP, who as much as the protests and media attention would suggest otherwise, still enjoy good support in Turkey and who can still ensure a successful implementation of the peace process.

However, the message is clear, act quickly, decisively and wholeheartedly, before an unstoppable whirlwind engulfs all of Turkey.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc.

The Turkish-Kurdish peace process at a critical juncture

Leave a reply

As ever in the Middle East, the concept of destruction can take mere seconds and construction many years. It may take years, decades or even centuries to strike peace, resolve sectarian, ethnic or political rifts or reach consensus whilst a single bullet, bombing or event can quickly lead back to square one.

In the face of this, with the onset of the historic peace process launched at the turn of the year, Turkey has a unique opportunity to finally end its decades-long military conflict with the PKK and build social, political and economic bridges with its long impoverished and disenfranchised Kurdish population.

The latest peace process with the heavy involvement of imprisoned PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan was bold, ambitious and commendable but was hardly based on a national consensus. For some Turkish nationalist and secularists who oppose Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, it was even deemed the last straw.

More importantly, the peace process is fraught with a great deal of animosity and mistrust between the PKK and the AKP-led government. To make matters worse, the details of the so-called road-map is riddled with a lack of clarity, including its stages or actual steps that will be implemented.

Just what has Ankara agreed with Ocalan and the PKK in peace negotiations, what is the timetable and what concessions will the Turkish government adopt in reality?

The withdrawal of PKK militants in stages that began shortly after Ocalan’s historic Newroz announcement was a welcome move, but uneasy on the how the government will respond to their side of the bargain, the recent statements from Ocalan, BDP leaders and PKK commander Murat Karayılan have been washed with apprehension and warnings.

BDP leaders have continuously pressed the government for implementing legal reform and ‘second phase’ of the process and have hit-out against the looming deadlock. The idea of a 3 month parliamentary recess at a critical juncture in the process hardly soothed sentiments.

Ocalan himself, the real key to this process, a fact that most Turks resent, is growing weary amidst current progress and lack of perceived reciprocation from the government.

At a sensitive time in the Kurdish-Turkish reconciliation comes the heavy public pressure on Erdogan and the widely publicised Gezi park demonstrations. The heavy handed Turkish response and growing public discontent is contributing to an increasing polarisation of Turkey. The mass nature of the protests and ensuing violence was hardly the tonic for the peace-process.

Ironically, the protests and incidents in Istanbul and western Turkey is what the world has been accustomed to seeing in Turkey’s south eastern Kurdish region. However, this time the Kurds stayed largely out of the protests and the Kurdish region has been calm and in positive anticipation.

The Kurds and the Turkish government must remain commitment to the path of peace regardless of provocations. The threat of sabotage is not one-sided, there are elements on both sides that wish to derail peace.

The last six months have been the most peaceful in Turkey in almost 3 decades, yet both sides remain quick to broadcast and highlight any violations.

Ultimately, actions speak louder than words. Turkey has a unique opportunity to end military struggle that has cost billions of dollars but must match rhetoric with firm legal steps.

Each Turkish rocket, weapon or tank, cost millions of dollars yet the same millions that destroys infrastructure and future generations can help build schools, roads and hospitals.

At a sensitive conjecture in the Middle East, there must be a firm realisation in Turkey that peace and true reconciliation between Kurds and Turkey is not an option but the only solution.

Rhetoric from the AKP government has remained somewhat positive, with Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Besir Atalay even praising the peaceful nature of the PKK withdrawal. Most elements within the Turkish government realise that there is no turning-back and peace is the only way forward.

However, wishes of a majority can be easily drowned by actions of the minority. The smallest of skirmishes or any Turkish casualties and the war may return greater than ever.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc.

Kurdistan to Maliki – your last (last) chance?

Leave a reply

As Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki landed in Erbil to chair a rare but symbolic meeting of the Iraqi cabinet in the Kurdish capital and discuss a number of issues with the Kurdish leadership, expectations appeared high.

However, Maliki has shown political shrewdness when backed against a corner in the past, making concessions, striking agreements, renewing promises and proposing committees when the heat has been on, only to prove that rhetoric prevailed over real action and practical steps.

A delegation to Baghdad led by Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani in May culminated in a decision to form seven committees all geared towards addressing specific issues between Kurdistan and Baghdad which also ended the boycott of Kurdish MPs in Baghdad.

The committees, to be directly by Maliki and Barzani, include ones to oversee reviews of the federal budget, draft oil and gas law, article 140 and overseeing of parliamentary work and Baghdad and Erbil relations.

Kurdistan Massaud Barzani emphasized that the latest round of negotiations are a final chance and that Kurdistan will be forced to seek a “new form of relations” with the central government in Baghdad if negotiations fail to resolve key disputes.

The issues between the KRG and Baghdad have become so deep-rooted, cyclic and predictable that it is hard to see why this time around will be any different.

The Kurdistan leadership has played a role in reaching the current predicament and the lack of progress on historic issues such as disputed terrotories. KRG has rubber-stamped two terms of power for Maliki in return for strategic partnerships.

Yet several years since the first Iraqi elections and over 10 years since the liberation of Iraq, the strategic agreements have not been fully implemented and if anything disputes have become more protracted, entrenched and distant from resolution. Kurdistan should have given a “last chance” to Maliki and Baghdad many years ago.

Maliki was accused of centralist tendencies, inciting sectarian tensions and foot-dragging on constitutional implementation in his first term of power, never mind the second term (or even in a third term if he gets his way).

The relations between Erbil and Baghdad have been shrouded by formation of committees, agreements and political road-maps. But how many more meetings and committees do the Kurd want to participate in?

Kirkuk and disputed territories is a prime example. It is understandable if there are technical delays to implementing complex constitutional articles. But should there be a delay of several months or 6 years? And since there were delays, any sincere government would adopt a plan to meet its legal obligations in the quickest possible time.

This is the same for hydrocarbon law which has gathered dust since 2007, status of Peshermrga forces, national budget etc. In the case of Kirkuk, even a national census, delayed on so many occasions, would have at least marked one achievement. Even that has been sidelined as Baghdad knows it would serve as a de-facto referendum on disputed territories.

Now is the time for practical steps and firm timelines for implementation of issues by the Kurdistan leadership. Until Baghdad resolves disputed territories, KRG and Peshmerga forces have the right to jointly govern and control these regions.

The bitter Sunni protests and the latest cycle of sectarian violence has redrawn sharp lines between Shiites and Sunni and coupled with sectarian polarisation in the wider region, may prove to be even greater than peaks reached in 2007.

Maliki can ill-afford to carry on antagonising ever corner of Iraq (including his own Shiite alliance) and for Iraqi Kurds the time is ripe to seek real concessions. If Baghdad refused to succumb to Kurdish demands when it is at its knees, it will never implement agreements at its peak.

The recent provincial elections only served to highlight the deepening polarisation of the county and weak political picture. Forming a new government and choosing a Prime Minister after elections in 2014 will prove as daunting as ever.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc.