Author Archives: admin

Turkey Finally Offers Dialogue, Under a Cloud of More Bombardments

As the roar of planes and bombardments, quickly condemned by the KRG, dominated the foreground, in the background announcement by the National Security Council (MGK) of Turkey to initiate much over due talks with Iraqi Kurds, introduced a welcome air of optimism.

The green light for talk and engagement instead of confrontation and alienation was followed by the first official Turkish contact with the KRG on March 28th, and is a product of a somewhat softer stance adopted by both sides in recent weeks.

Turkish relations with the Iraqi Kurds have proved capricious since Kurds won self rule in 1991. Relations, however, took a fresh twist post-2003 as the Kurdish entity was galvanized by the new Iraqi constitution and the Kurds steadily increased in prominence, economic prosperity and confidence.

A problem dealing with a growingly independent Kurdistan Region on their doorstep was greatly exasperated as the PKK after a period of relative calm post-1999, chose the mountains of Iraqi Kurdistan as the fitting stage to launch the latest wave of their own deadly battle for nationalism.

Although now enshrined in legislation, the Turkish government has refused formal recognition of the KRG. This is perceived as an action that would effectively endorse Kurdish autonomy and potential right to independence. It would also simultaneously undermine their own battle against Kurdish nationalism and the containment of their restive Kurdish minority.

As tensions have soared over the PKK guerrilla camps in the Qandil mountains, the Turkish government has repeatedly accused the Iraqi Kurds of tolerance or even direct support of the PKK, a claim the Iraqi Kurds have vehemently denied.

All the while, the US, stuck in somewhat of a quagmire in the south of Iraq has been likened to a man with two wives, torn between supporting arguably its two most crucial allies at the present time.

Turkey finally decided to take matters into its own hands, firstly when parliament endorsed cross-border military incursions in October 2007, then by a series of bombing campaigns thereafter aided by US intelligence. Unable to prevent further widely-publicised rebel attacks, the Turkish government succumbed to pressure from its hawks and finally launched a highly-controversial week-long offensive into Iraqi territory.

Claims of strategic victory by Turkish generals is highly debatable and under US pressure, the Turkish army hastily withdrew under a cloud of uncertainly and much confusion.

Amidst the thick political dust, once thing become glaringly obvious, the Turkish army once again failed to inflict substantial damage on PKK bases let alone defeat the threat emanating from Iraq altogether.

Lacking a politics front to this 24-year battle, twenty-five cross-border incursions have so far proved fruitless. Turkey must tackle the heart of the issue and deal with the root of the problem if it desires any long-term solution. Mere premises of investment in Eastern Turkey and recognition of its ‘Kurdish issue’ have so far not resulted in any substantial action.

Repeated harsh exchanges with Iraqi Kurdish leaders have proved counter-productive whilst sowing a common feeling of mistrust.

Clearly, both sides have much to gain from a common partnership and constructive dialogue. Regardless of a lack of official recognition, trade between both sides has been flourishing at a remarkable pace for many years. Both sides have already reaped much gain from indirect ties.

The time of paramilitary tactics employed by the PKK are over. Rebel attacks have certainly influenced Turkish concessions and attracted international attention but it will fail to take the issue to the next level needed. By the same token, turkey must shed its decade’s old rigid and outdated imperialist and nationalist ideals.

Both the Kurds and Turks are here to stay. Iraqi Kurds will continue to develop and grow independently with or without Turkey. It’s much more advantageous for Turkey to influence, shapeand support the region under its stewardship, rather than continue a policy of denial.

The benefits of a productive and harmonious relationship are countless. A prosperous, secular and democratic Kurdistan serves as a vital buffer to Turkey’s east while the possibility of having an EU country on its doorstep in the not too distant future is an enormous opportunity for Kurds on both sides of the border.

Its time for Turkey to shed its outdated philosophies and embrace the idea that natural eventualities can not be overcome by sheer arsenal.

The Kurdish arm has been outstretched for many years in eagerness of friendship and common brotherhood, if only Turkey can finally fulfill promise this time around and shatter its age-old taboos.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.

The Countdown to the Inheritance of Bush’s Headache

Leave a reply

It is proving for the US that one man can take a horse to water but a thousand can’t make him drink.

Five years of a conflict with seemingly no end-sight has taken its toll. With the cost of operations in Iraq at $10billion a month, a US economy in recession, rocketing fuel prices, over 4000 US casualties and protracted political progress in Iraq, disgruntled voices in the Senate and general US public are understandably growing by the day.

Much like their Iraqi counterparts in their transition to democracy, the US has often taken one step forward and two steps back. This view was reinforced after President Bush as widely expected announced his intention to freeze troop withdrawals from July and allow senior commander General David Petraeus time to evaluate and assess the next steps.

With Petraeus unwilling to commit on troop numbers and Bush’s wait and see approach, it is apparent that at least under his presidential tenure, Bush has no strategy for ending America’s highly contentious and costly involvement in Iraq.

The Democrats have accused Bush of handing over the headache to the next president by side-stepping tough decisions. The announcement to halt troop drawdown means that US troop levels will remain above 140,000 well into 2009 at the minimum. Although Democrat-presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have signalled their intention to withdraw as soon as feasible, the next administrations hands may well have been tied for the foreseeable future.

Even in the face of other critical concerns at home headed by looming economic recession, it is easy to see why Iraq has dominated the presidential race.

Bush may well be executing his own exit strategy as he hailed a “major strategic shift” in Iraq. Bush’s stance was notably more encouraging than that of Petraeus and Crocker, as he delivered an upbeat speech pointing out to military, political and economic progress in Iraq.

However, although the surge has reaped dividends in Iraq, the ultimate goal of political reconciliation in Iraq has been instigated at a leisurely pace. Whilst the US has too-often hailed what has been achieved, the emptier half of the glass is of far greater weighting. Key benchmarks such as a representative national government, oil sharing and provincial powers are proving as elusive as ever. On the ground, reconstruction is slow and heavily reliant on US funding.

As Bush may have tied the hands of the next administration, Baghdad has effectively tied the hands of Bush. The Iraqi military, riven by sectarianism, is still heavily reliant on the US and unable to function effectively as a ‘central’ force. Meanwhile, the fractious Iraqi political landscape is plagued by common mistrust with the cancerous influence of numerous militias proving a major time-bomb. Recent violence in Basra only highlighted the tentative and volatile climate in Iraq.

Violence has certainly dropped and al-Qaeda has taken a major blow, thanks largely to the onset of Sunni councils. However, this may yet haunt Iraq in the future if Sunni demands for a bigger slice of the political cake are not fulfilled.

Petraeus has warned that any hasty pullout would undercut security, while the US institute for Peace claiming “the U.S. is no closer to being able to leave Iraq than it was a year ago”, warned of mass chaos and genocide in such an eventuality.

While more troops can enforce valuable security, at the end of the day any sacrifice is in vain if Iraqis do not capitalise on the windows of opportunity afforded. Even with all the time and money in the world, the appetite of the Iraqi factions for reconciliation and compromise, is far more empowering than the might of any army.

If the current US vision of a democratic, prosperous and peaceful Iraq is to be realised, one can forget withdrawal in the next 10 years. Ominously, even then such full US-engagement may prove inconclusive or even powerless to avoid civil war.

The only way the US can withdraw in the next 1-2 years is to implement a drastically fuzzier interpretation of “success”, then possibly opt to allow nature to run its course in Iraq. Bush may be accused of creating the current mayhem in Iraq, but in reality they only lifted the unceremonious lid. Iraq’s problems are far more deep-rooted and artificial. Century’s old sectarian and ethnic tension can not be papered over by Western values.

If the Iraqis do not advocate the same ideals, the US can dream all it likes.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.

Iraq: contentious, controversial and explosive

Leave a reply

The Iraqi transitional road to democracy has been difficult and historic, but nothing compared with the future implication of the time-bombs that have littered the path.

Five years on from the liberation of Iraq, the US occupation of the Mesopotamian plains remains as contentious, controversial and explosive as ever.

While Iraq has dominated international media almost daily, hopes for a swift and successful transition to democracy have been all but dashed. Rampant insurgency, a stagnant economy and bitter squabbling among the Iraqi mosaic has effectively placed Iraq in a worse position in respect to its stability and economy than it was under Saddam.

Battling a deadly Sunni-inspired insurgency and the forces of al-Qaida has left the US coalition in a quagmire. Daily suicide bombings, attacks by sectarian militias, high-profile assassinations and mass unemployment took a dramatic toll that was only later partially bridged by a controversial US surge strategy.

However, short-term gains and initiatives have all too often over-looked the long-term implications in Iraq. Ultimately, no plan is effective, if the will of the factions, plagued by common mistrust and animosity, is lacking the appetite to make the state a success.

Post-2003 euphoria

The short-lived euphoria that followed the Iraqi liberation from decades of brutal totalitarianism was quickly submerged by mass looting and anarchy. A number of high-profile blunders, such as the disarmament of the entire army and rapid de-Baathification by the Coalitional Provisional Authority only added fuel to a raging fire.

Although, clearly, none of the weapons of mass destruction were found as had been suggested by US intelligence, the majority of the Iraqi population, particularly Kurds and Shiites who suffered repression and lived under the shadows of Baathist nationalism, were grateful that in their eyes the real weapon of mass destruction was dethroned and later dramatically hanged.

As the problems compounded, the stance of the US administration slowly turned from attaining victory to achieving “success”. What was hoped to be a short-term operation has seemingly lengthened month by month. Within weeks, Iraq became the battle-ground for Islamic terrorism, fuelled by a disenchanted Sunni population whom after decades of supremacy were now affectively playing second-fiddle to the Kurds and their Shiite arch-nemesis.

History making at the polls

The transitional road to democracy was rocky but nevertheless historic. In 2005, the population defied terrorists’ threats and went to the polls in their millions. Elections for an unprecedented Iraqi constitution in October 2005 were followed closely by the first elections for an elected Iraqi National Assembly.

However, although pictures of Iraqi’s with voting cards served as great marketing boost for the US, mass boycotting by the Sunni population only undermined the process.

While the constitution was approved by the required threshold, the Sunnis have demanded ever since that before any talk of political reconciliation, the constitution must be amended, a greater Sunni representation must be afforded in government and for the Iraqi security forces to be overhauled to dilute the virtual Shiite hegemony over the distrusted forces.

This is easier said than done in Iraq, with factions reluctant to loosen their hard-fought gains, just because Sunnis “regretted” their stance at the polls. Under strong US pressure, mindful that without enticing Sunnis into the political fold terrorists and insurgents may never be undermined, the Iraqi government has attempted to reach out to the Sunnis. Loosening of the de-Baathification laws and a promise to establish a constitutional review committee have provided limited dividends.

The wait for true democracy

The elections in Iraq were as predictable as they were historic. Voting patterns only highlighted the fragmented nature of the society. Most political parties representing each group united to maximise gains at the elections.

The elections only served as a political census and by no means revealed great insight into the policies and vision of an elected Iraqi government.

Iraqi negotiations were often bogged-down by protracted negotiations, missed deadlines and bitter squabbling. Frequently at a stalemate, it was only with fervent US pressure that the political process did not grind to a halt altogether.

However, all too often for the sake of progress, the real issues were swept under the political rug and remained unresolved as ticking time-bombs.

Years later, the highly contentious issues of sharing of natural resources, the extent of federalism and the role of religion are still gathering dust in the Iraqi political chambers.

A year after the initial Iraqi hydro-carbon law was perpetuated in government, Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis remain as divided as ever. With the second highest oil reserves in the world, oil revenues are key for the revitalisation of an Iraqi economy virtually shattered by UN sanctions under Saddam and then by a lack of stability and investment.

Growing discord between the Kurdistan Regional Government and Baghdad

It is difficult to assess the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in the same breath as the rest of Iraq. While violence and sectarian bloodshed has engulfed much of Iraq, the Kurds, flourishing under de facto independence have been quietly building a model state with growing prominence, economic prosperity and strategic importance.

Impatiently waiting for what they perceive as a failing state, the Kurds have since sought a unilateral path while successfully marketing the Kurdistan region as “the other Iraq”.

However, the rapid gains and transformation of their region into a credible economic hub has come at a price. After the Kurds approved their own oil laws, international oil companies flocked to the region. A number of exploration contracts were awarded but were followed by a strong rebuke from Baghdad insisting that any deal signed without the consent of the central government was “illegal”.

Increasing allegations of over-reaching by Kurds, have added to a growing rift between regional powers, the legal implications of the current constitution and the allocation of the Iraqi national budget.

Clearly, the Shiites in particular can ill-afford to alienate their Kurdish partners, and with the much-maligned and shaky Iraqi government spear-headed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki under intense spotlight, the Kurds will feel confident to continue developing their region unchallenged.

The recent tensions between Arbil and Baghdad only served as a reminder that key issues between both sides have only been papered over by the greater difficulties in the rest of Iraq.

The Kurds are suspicious as ever that Baghdad does not want to see a successful Kurdish entity developing. The lack of a decisive response from Baghdad over the recent Turkish invasion of Kurdistan only added to their frustration.

Ominously the issue of oil-rich Kirkuk, side-stepped for many years by Baghdad, is coming to the boil and another delay in the referendum, original scheduled for the end of 2007, may well test Kurdish bluff and induce a deadly conflict.

The US surge

Under the controversial US surge strategy initiated in early 2007, violence has steadily declined and security has dramatically improved. However, while the US has been credited with a successful strategy, there have been a number of key factors in the turn around that may yet produce a future minefield that Iraq could well do without.

Increasingly alienated by heavy handed al-Qaida tactics, chronic lack of employment and years of fighting, the Sunnis turned against the insurgents. The advent and expansion of Sahwa or Sunni Awakening Councils, armed and funded by the US, were a poetic success story that at least on paper paved the way for greater national reconciliation.

The benefit of driving out al-Qaida cells from their neighbourhood is a bigger slice of the political cake, the inauguration of the Sunni militias into the Iraqi security forces and ultimately an overhaul of the constitution.

The other factor in the decline in violence is the ceasefire by influential cleric Moqtada al-Sadr who enjoys great support in the Shiite-dominated south. However, recent well documented violence in Basra may yet mean that the 60,000 strong Mehdi Army may enter back into the fold for good.

As important as the Sunni support remains, the key for the US is containing al-Sadr and ensuring his party remains on the political track. In 2006, sectarian hit squads on the back of high-profile bombings of key shrines threatened to send the country to the brink of civil war.

The trillion-dollar war?

By most conservative estimates, the war in Iraq has already cost the United States more than US$400 billion, however according to a Nobel Prize-wining analyst the war, at the current rate of expenditure, could astonishingly surpass three trillion dollars by 2017.

With the number of American casualties in Iraq now past the critical 4,000 mark, coupled with the huge cost of combating a war with no end in sight, the growing disillusionment of the US public is easy to see. The good name of the US has been severely tarnished abroad and public opinion at home has turned slowly from anguish to anger.

The US mid-term election of 2006 for control of Congress was by far dominated by the Iraq war with the Democrats making significant gains.

Both Democratic presidential candidates have called for a comprehensive troop withdrawal. Hillary Clinton promised to undertake serious troop reduction “in the first 60 days” of her administration, with her rival, Barack Obama, pledging to see combat troops “out within 16 months”.

Reconciliation in Iraq

Although, the US and Iraqi governments have tried in vain to embed a national unity government by appeasing Sunnis and promising political accommodation, the long-term strength of the devastating insurgency remains to be seen.

The defeat of al-Qaida in many quarters has now resulted in a “mosaic war” across Iraq with a collection of battles rather than any concentrated fronts. However, promise of reconciliation by Baghdad must be finally delivered if Iraq is to stand any chance of capitalising on the few positives gains.

An all-encompassing concord remains intangible. Just recently, Shiite and Sunni blocs in parliament boycotted a conference on Iraqi reconciliation. True reconciliation may yet be a dream while in the interim the US may have to suffer the repercussions of a lack of an Iraqi appetite for urgency to unity and compromise.

One can not understate the rivalry and sectarian passion that underpins the current gulf between the factions in Iraq. Sectarian animosity lasting hundreds of years can not be healed in a matter of years. At a minimum, many military strategists reference a 10-year average for insurgencies, with an expected drop in strength and recruitment after a decade.

Clearly, any hasty US withdrawal now will only create a vacuum that will severely undermine the hard-fought gains. The fear of the US administration is therefore understandable. According to US President George W. Bush, who insists that the war launched five years ago was right, any chaos leftover from Iraq would mean “… the terrorist movement could emerge emboldened with new recruits … new resources … and an even greater determination to dominate the region and harm America”.

The importance of lasting the course was echoed by US Vice President Dick Cheney, who claimed that premature withdrawal would mean that Iraq would remain a place of “stagnation, resentment and violence ready for export”.

The proxy war that has been fought by the Iranian government to undermine US efforts and constant meddling by Iraqi neighbours has only served to increase tension. The majority Shiite population has a natural warming with the Shiite theocracy in Iran. However, conversely, the US remains bitter enemies of the Iranian state and Sunni nationalists strongly despise any Iranian influence on Iraq.

The correlations that surround the artificial state of Iraq are simply vast. While the US may have inherited the problem, in reality the problem was sown with the creation of Iraq as a country long ago.

Factions within a faction

The belief that the key to political reconciliation is bringing Sunni, Kurds and Shiites together is misleading. Such is Iraq that there are many divisions within each faction itself.

There is increasingly violence between Sunnis that remain loyal to al-Qaida and those who are pro-American. Divisions within the Shiite majority are much graver however. Fighting between Shiite government forces and Shiite militias have already cost hundreds of lives in recent weeks and threaten upheaval in the Shiite south.

Bridging the gap between moderates and extremists in each bloc is proving a tough measure.

Conclusion

Ominously, Iraq now boasts three major groups each armed to the teeth by their respective militias.

Political progress has been far-too slow but even then it has been affectively undermined by long-term uncertainties inherent in any agreement. Indeed, it is these all too frequent time-bombs which may yet invoke a bloody civil war, with or without US presence in the country. As political gains have ensued, the democratic road in Iraq has been paradoxically littered with these time-bombs.

Ultimately the surge has failed. It was always going to be a temporary measure to allow breathing space for greater national reconciliation. With no agreement on oil, disputes about federalism and provincial powers, and the issue of Kirkuk intensifying by the day, the Iraqi government has yet again failed to meet most of its critical benchmarks.

Five years on, the US is far from a successful exit strategy. It looks more and more likely that President Bush will hand over the headache and the time-bombs to the next US president.

The strategy of the next US president has naturally come under intense spotlight. Whether they continue their dream of a democratic and prosperous Iraq and battle on, or they withdraw all together, Iraq will continue to dominate the international fold for decades to come.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Epoch Times, Online Opinion, Peyamner, Various Misc.

As We Rejoice in the Dawn of the Spring Equinox – Let Us Never Forget the Sacrifice of Our Martyrs

Leave a reply

March – Forever, the Divine Month in Kurdish Folklore and History.

From ubiquitous hardship throughout existence to the brutal persecution at the hands of tyrants and oppressors in recent times, the Kurds have survived against the odds.

No amount of sophisticated military arsenal, attack helicopters, superior jets or even chemical weapons could defeat the resolve and determination of the nation. Even as global powers watched passively as merciless regimes across the mountainous plains committed unprecedented crimes in sheer daylight, the Kurds rejected repeated attempts to erase their identity.

Indeed for many a year, the mountains have been our only friends. On the eve of this Newroz, 2008 can mark a new dawn in our heritage and existence. Lands can be divided and people can be dispersed against their will, but the unity of their hearts is indivisible.

Let us never forget the tremendous courage of our slain brothers and sisters, who fought in the mountains in spite of no food or shelter whilst facing bitter temperatures, without their families and against the toughest of obstacles. It is the immense courage of our martyrs that prevailed in battle. It was a refusal to succumb to second-class citizenship, to accept tyranny and to accept demise.

Weapons may wipe thousands of villages off the map but for a ferocious loyal, proud and valiant folk, their identity can never be driven off the maps of history.

As divinity and fortune would dictate, March will forever stand as a truly remarkable month in the history of every Kurd. There are three events that are perpetually imprinted within our blood and sprit.

The occasion of Newroz, marks the beginning of the vernal equinox, the beginning of a new day and the beginning of a new era in our existence. Each Newroz through thousands of years has reminded us of our ancient culture, civilisation and how the undiminished resolve of a forceful soul can overcome even the fiercest of tyrants, the cruellest of rulers.

It was in the March 1991 uprising that Kurds chose to forever expel evil from their land, to no longer accept second-class citizenship and begin a ‘Newroz’ or a new chapter of existence. It was the ‘Raparin’ of 1991 that opened the passage to the freedom, democracy and prosperity of today.

As we rejoice, dance and sing in delight on the occasion of Newroz, let us also pay the highest respects and tribulations for the thousands of our men and woman who faced death, in the manner that their legendary resistance fighters based their ethos. Without the selfless sacrifice of the thousands who chose their nationality and moral integrity over their own lives throughout history and in the uprising of 1991, we would never be where we are today.

Above each and everything let us never forget the atrocity of Halabja committed in March 1988. This will forever be etched as the blackest day in our history and also the day of greatest triumph. The day, as the world stood by and watched one of the gruesome acts ever afflicted – in the hour of beckoning and sorrow, the Kurdish eagle refused to die down. The eagle instead chose to strengthen its sprit, its resolve and the ferocity of the way it flew through the mystic lands.

Let us not forget ourselves in the mist of high-rise buildings, new highways, airports and the freedom of today. There is nothing wrong with assimilation into a democratic, modern and prosperous way of life – everyone has the right to a high standard of living, to a brighter future and to happiness, the Kurds are no different but let’s never forget the very essence that has made us who we are throughout our history. Let us not forget, our common spirit and ties of kinship that has placated our eternal path.

Our history has been tainted with stories of double-crossing and betrayals. Let us not linger in false sense of security, in a cocoon of neglect and taking for granted and to believe that we can depend on our allies. Let us not rest on our laurels and accept self-deception and belief that we have reached the end.

In our struggle and fight to preserve our identity, culture, history and to defeat the forces of repression – our fight is not over. For this is only the end of the beginning, our fight for stature, solidarity and nationhood begins on this Newroz.

Let the Newroz of March 2008, mark yet another epic milestone in our history.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.

Kurds United Against Aggression – Mass Demonstrations Held Across the Unites States

Leave a reply

Globe’s Bashdar Pusho Ismaeel Interviews Ara Alan, head of the successful Kurdish Youth Organisation in America

On 21^st February 2008, Turkish forces invaded Kurdistan under the pretext of destroying PKK guerrilla bases. A flagrant breach of Iraqi and KRG sovereignty was affectively endorsed by US administration but widely condemned by a number of powers urging Turkey to show restraint.

Kurds across the world were angered and embittered by such arrogant and abrasive violation of international law. The widely condemned move was seen by Kurdistan region as Turkish ploys to undermine and destabilise the only stable and prosperous part of Iraq.

However, the Kurd have shown both in the region and in the Diaspora, that they are no longer the victims of aggression and belittlement by regional powers stuck in their imperialistic and outdated mindsets.

Ara Alan, helped organise a number of influential demonstrations across the US, in the very back yard of the US administration who seemingly were willingly to double-cross the Kurdish people once more, for the strategic gains of bowing to the Turks.

Bashdar Ismaeel: Can you give me a brief summary of the goals of the Kurdish Youth in America

Ara Alan: Our goal was to have a Kurdish opposition voice to Turkey’s unjust attack on Kurds. US tried to play both sides, the Kurds and the Turks. By keeping silence, they could keep the American people ignorant and out the situation. American people, today many favour Kurds. Having our voice heard in and out of Kurdistan can affectively pressure the US government to make the right decision which is not to allow turkey to interfere with Kurdistan.

Bashdar Ismaeel: How successful were the demonstrations scope and size in getting your voices heard by the Bush administration?

Ara Alan: We were successful. This was also the second wave of demonstrations that we held. The first wave was on November 2^nd(2007). Kurdish population in US is low. So our demonstrations were based on quality and affective media campaign rather than number of people marching on the streets. We were successful on our Media campaigns.

Bashdar Ismaeel: Can you tell me briefly, what media coverage was received?

Ara Alan: We were able to receive coverage on many local and national TV, radio, Newspapers and bloggers. By having simultaneous demonstrations in, Washington DC, Nashville Tennessee, Atlanta Georgia, Jacksonville Florida, Dallas Taxes, Phoenix Arizona, San Francisco and San Diego California, we were able to multiply the affect of coverage. When we were covered by one station in one city, they would also report on all the other cities

Bashdar Ismaeel: What is the message that you want to send out to the Turkish military planning future incursions?

Ara Alan: We in one voice condemn their invasion and war onto our people. We ask the Turkish government to immediately; withdraw all their military with their bases and to put an end to the bloodshed that they have created. It should be clear to the Turkish government that Kurds are a proud nation. Suppression, imprisonment, kidnapping, Abraham Tanks, F-16s, Cobra helicopters, arterial bombing nor ground incursion and village burning can make us stop being Kurds!

Bashdar Ismaeel: How influential do you think the strong Kurdish Diaspora base cross USA and Europe can be in swaying international opinion?

Ara Alan: Very important, we nee much more attention and collaboration with Kurds inside of Kurdistan. We are the best message carriers. Many of us are citizens with many more citizen friends that can influence the vote a congressman/woman would need for an election. This potential must be capitalized by Kurdish people across USA and EU. On many occasions such as this demonstration, we very strongly need a backing from Kurdistan and Kurdish people. We ask Kurdish Youth in Kurdistan not to keep silence in face of Aggression. Brother and Sisters stand with us when we stand against aggression. Stand with us when we stand for justice, stand with us when we stand for Kurdistan.

Bashdar: Kak Ara thank you for your time, Kurdistan is thankful for the work of the Kurdish Youth movements everywhere.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Kurdish Youth Organisation (KYO), Peyamner, Various Misc.

Kosovo Marks Further Double Standards in the Application of International Criterion

Leave a reply

“What is good for the goose is good for the gander” English Proverb

On Sunday 17^th February, the parliament of Kosovo unanimously approved a declaration of independence from Serbia, marking the end of the dissolution of Yugoslavia and with it the realisation of one Europe’s worst kept secrets.

Despite strong objections from Serbia, Russia and a handful of EU countries and vitally a lack of a UN resolution, it was long anticipated that Kosovo would declare unilateral independence in early 2008.

As the streets of Pristina were overfilled with joy and excitement, just across the small province, the Serbian dominated parts witnessed much violence, anger and upheaval.

The controversial motion sets an ominous precedence for separatist movements across the globe, in spite of EU claims that Kosovo was a ‘special case’. Serbia withdrew ambassadors to a number of countries that supported Kosovar independence and denounced the proclamation of a ‘false state’. Serbia was adamant that the sovereignty of Belgrade over Kosovo was guaranteed by UN and international law.

Clearly, the example of Kosovo shows that statehood can be achieved with the support of key countries across the world. Even without the advent of a UN resolution and particularly support from Russia and China, fervent US support was all that was necessary.

Russia accused the EU of encouraging global separatism and was equally vocal in its criticism of the US in proceedings.

Unsurprisingly, the UN Security Council could not agree on a response to Kosovo’s proclamation but declaration of independence was quickly recognised by US, Britain, Germany and numerous others.

With their own separatist headaches, a number of countries including Russia, Cyprus and Spain refused to recognise the newest member of the European family.

Apprehension by those opposed to the unilateral pursuit of statehood is understandable. After all, the definition of a credible separatist movement from those seeking unlawful division of a sovereign country is proving a very fine line.

Perhaps the most ironic recognition of Kosovo was by Turkey, who was never an avid supporter but its ‘thumbs-up’ to the new state was symbolic nevertheless. Undoubtedly, Kosovo has paradoxical implications for Turkey. On the one hand, it strengthens their claim on the rogue state of Northern Cyprus which they have held by force since 1974 despite no official international recognition. On the other hand, it undermines their bloody war with Kurdish separatists that they have relentlessly tried to quell and have even invaded a neighbouring country under the banner of preserving national security.

The old saying, ‘what is good for the goose is good for the gander’ cannot be discounted. The situation begs a critical question, as Kosovo and by Turkish implications, Northern Cyprus are justified separatist causes then how can 15 millions Kurds with a rich culture and history dating back thousands of years in the same region be classified as terrorists by the same brush?.

It only goes to highlight the importance of perception. Kosovar independence was endorsed by the US and other powers because its people ‘deserved’ freedom and unmolested sovereignty and by virtue that Serbia had forfeited the claim to the province after a highly-publicised genocide that was conducted in the late 1990’s that culminated in the region becoming a UN administered zone, protected by NATO.

However, the similarities with the Kurds by that same token stretches even deeper. As Kosovar’s suffered under a dictatorship, so have the Kurds for many decades under multiple regimes. Kurds form a great minority in Turkey, Iran and Iraq as Albanians do in Serbia, Greece and Macedonia. Kosovo Albanians also border their ethnic brethren as do the Kurds in four adjacent countries.

However, whilst Albanians already have a country of their own (Albania), the Kurds have nothing. The struggle to establish a ‘Kosovar’ identity in the aftermath of statehood is well documented. Kosovar’s have yet to build a distinctive national image with a lack of an official flag, army and national anthem. After all, it was the greater Albanian flag that was ubiquitous on every corner of Pristina.

The tale of double-crossings and double-standards has been the bane of modern Kurdish history. Forcefully divided, a national of 40 million with its own flag, language, history and distinct national identity has never received the support of global powers.

If the principle of self-determination as touted by former US president Woodrow Wilson or the modern model used for Kosovo is applied equivocally then Kurdistan would have been independent long ago.

The key issue is not whether the Kurds deserve independence (in the same manner as Kosovar’s obviously do), anyone in their rightful mind will not doubt this, even the strongest of foes but it is the loss that some global powers would have by employing these same principles to the Kurds.

For one, the Kurds have masses of oil which was a precursor to their separation in the first place. However, it is the imperialist ploys of the past that continue to make mockery of the new world order.

Unfortunately, the political chess board is full of loop-holes and shallow interpretations. Each pawn will only move in a way afforded by other seemingly superior pieces. Whilst the Kurds advocating even cultural rights are deemed terrorists for defending their identity, other groups are endorsed in the same quest.

Whilst global powers rushed to assist a population of 2 million in Kosovo, millions of Kurds have been the victims of brutal persecution and chemical gassing, while the same advocates of a righteous world turned a blind eye – seemingly to quench their strategic thirst that made the Kurds indispensable by-products.

At least Iraqi Kurdistan can take some heart for the new benchmark set by Kosovo and perhaps even a few tips on Kosovar marketing and systematic approach to achieving their goals.

However, even in the days of so-called equality and globalisation, out dated colonial philosophies are widely in circulation. If Kosovar’s are worthy of independence and freedom then based on what international criteria are separatists in Romania, Georgia and Spain classified as any different?

Obviously, not every nation or group without merit can simply demand independence, this would amount to absolute anarchy across the world but it just goes to show the vague and ambiguous international criterion for assessing the eligibility of statehood. In essence it is simply derived on factors determined to suit the parties around the table.

Ironically, with Kosovo now inhibiting a population of 10% Serbs, the seeds for future conflict and instability have already been sewn. Almost immediately following celebrations in the Kosovar capital, angry Serbs ransacked two border crossings linking Kosovo and Serbia with NATO forces subsequently cutting off Serbs in Kosovo from mainland Serbia.

Remarkably, what is now emerging on the ground is nothing short of a second Kosovo. So what if Serbs in Kosovo were now ethnically cleansed and systemically persecuted, what would the international community then do?

In the case of the Kurds, due to their rich lands and strategic position, independence would only have the same support if global powers would make particular benefit from such a move.

When the newly created state is more strategically significant than its former occupier, former occupiers would be simply powerless to stop the state attaining independence.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.

‘Time for Realism’ But is it Really the Kurds in Need of a Reality Check?

Leave a reply

Evidently, the Kurds have excelled under de-facto autonomy since 2003, whilst the rest of Iraq has been in turmoil and insurgency. However, it is often forgotten that Kurds have been practicing self-rule and increasing prosperity since 1991. Kurds chose to rejoin Iraq under a ‘voluntary’ union, whilst inheriting their pre-2003 status.

Depending on your source of news and political oratory, Kurds may be portrayed as a rather small rebellious group that has consumed more than its entitlement and has made unlawful gains whilst subsequently blocking national reconciliation. Common reference to ‘time for Kurdish realism’, Kurdish unilateralism, overreaching, land grabbing and disproportionate share of power, portrays a rather indifferent, greedy, inconsiderate and outrageous picture of the Kurds.

Perhaps, neighbours, politicians and foreign analysts, simply fail to observe eight decades of Kurdish history let alone the rich-history and culture dating back thousands of years. Admittedly, the rise to prominence is unparalleled in a remarkable short period of time in comparison to their lost and neglected existence for several decades before that. However, by no means should a tale of rags-to-the-riches be perceived as over-ambitious tendencies or overreaching.

The Kurds were harshly treated as second-class citizens and obstacles to the ideals of successive regimes. Neighbours Iran and Turkey and other Kurdish critics with their own agendas, should take note that the real parties in need of a reality check are not the Kurds. Days of denials, systematic persecution and crimes against humanity in the knowledge that the world would turn a blind eye is over.

Clearly the Kurds are reaching a critical conjecture in their history. After enduring decades of pain and sacrifice to rewrite partial wrongs and misfortunes of history, the Kurds must do all they can to patiently safeguard their historical gains and strategic standing. Swaying to the pressure and unjust rhetoric of Arabs, Turks and the like may well set the Kurds back decades more.

This is an opportunity for the Kurds via democratic and diplomatic means, in true contrast to their oppressors, correct the wrongs of the past and stand-up to chauvinism, aggression and belittling by other nationalists in the region.

Kurds must not allow foreign parties to dictate their fortune and destiny once more or be used as pawns in the greater schemes of global powers. This is nothing short of political suicide.

In Iraq, where the Kurds control the only stable, prosperous and peaceful part of the country, Arab Sunnis and Shiites after battling each other relentlessly for years, are now slowly uniting against the Kurds.

With a political memorandum issued by Arabs parties, the aim was clearly to halt Kurdish gains and impede their ‘overreaching’. A normalisation of Kirkuk, jurisdiction over oil, distribution of budget and regional authority had all been key conditions for Kurdish coalitions in government. Baghdad has been dragging its feet for years over Kirkuk and now Baghdad’s self-imposed actions that culminated in the missed referendum in 2007, are been used to annul article 140 of the constitution.

Reversal of past policies and crimes is the first litmus test of whether Arab mentalities really have changed or democracy can really be achieved. However, rather than stick to constitutional principles, Baghdad and their neighbours are simply looking at the unilateral aspect of Kurds inheriting oil in Kirkuk. Oil or no oil, money should not tamper the rights of inhabitants to return to the homes of their fore-fathers and to decide their fate.

The Iraqi flag imposed by Baathist leaders should have been the first to change and not grudgingly in 2008. After all it is the very symbol of a country. Yet more strikingly, the Iraqi national budget continues to remain stalled due yet again to a perception of transgression of boundaries by Kurds.

Disputes over provisional powers and rights of regions to explore oil, are again designed to put a spanner in Kurdish advancement. Clearly, Baghdad is now deflecting the blame for a lack of national reconciliation onto ‘uncompromising’ Kurds.

Ironically, as Kurds should be commended for their hard-fought gains, democracy, economy and a model of religious tolerance, they are been harshly judged as overstepping the mark.

Anywhere else, rectifying wrongs of the past, embarking on economic achievements and prominence against remarkable odds would be applauded, however clearly this would not happen in Iraq or neighbouring countries, only simply because in this instance it is the ‘impudent’ Kurds who stand to endure benefit and prosperity.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Hewler Post (Kurdish), Peyamner, Various Misc.

New Dispute Over National Budget Marks Mounting Friction Between KRG and Baghdad

Leave a reply

The Iraqi Political Paradigm – taking one step forward and two back.

The transitional road to democracy in Iraq has been symbolised by protracted negotiations, widespread animosity and mistrust and above all a lack of lasting compromise. However, in spite of the recent commendations by the US administration and the United Nations on progress in Iraq and the desire and effort to establish national reconciliation, particularly with the disenfranchised Sunni Arab population, fundamental problems continue to haunt Iraq.

The fulcrum of national discord is a long-running feud and increasing divide between the largely autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and Baghdad, on a number of highly-contentious issues.

Often in Iraqi politics, much to the frustration of a disillusioned population and their foreign occupiers, where Iraqis take a step forward in striking the right reconciliatory tones, other deep-seated issues plaguing the social horizon, means it habitually takes two steps back.

On paper, two major milestones were achieved in Iraq recently. Firstly, the Iraqi parliament unanimously passed a law to allow certain ex-Baathist Party officials to return to public life, fulfilling a key demand of embittered Sunnis.

Secondly, the Iraqi parliament voted in a majority over a draft to modify the existing flag by removing the three stars that served as an icon of Baathist Party ideology, to satisfy demands by Kurds who refused to fly a flag that symbolised all the misfortune and suffering that they had endured under it.

Although it marked a rare union in the National Assembly, in essence the urgency of taking a swift measure to change the flag, where similar initiatives had been rejected in the past, was the threat of a great embarrassment that would have engulfed the Iraqi government at the planned meeting of pan-Arab parliamentarians in Kurdistan, had the Iraqi national flag not been raised on a territory of a member of the Arab League.

To blight short-lived hope, as agreement over the new temporary national flag was embraced, almost simultaneously another hot-issue came to the fore. Over three weeks into the new year, the Iraqi national budget for 2008, allocating some 49 billions dollars, is dramatically stalled.

At the heart of the debate are objections from Sunnis and particularly from the ruling Shiite alliance, whose traditional alliance with the Kurds is diminishing, on the allocation of 17% the national budget to the KRG. The Kurds had also insisted that the Kurdish Peshmerga should be paid out of the national defence budget as a legitimate “Iraqi” defence force. Other reservations, stemmed from the lack of accountability of government spending over the last few years and the perceived lack of strategy and clarity as to how the budget will be affectively spent to tackle key areas of poverty and unemployment.

In reality, the dispute over the national budget is an off-shoot of the bitter disagreement over the Iraqi hydrocarbon law all that was all but postponed indefinitely due to deepening disagreements between the fractious groups in Iraq, over the rights and jurisdiction of regions in the distribution of Iraq’s immense oil wealth.

Add the heated-disputes over the unilateral signing of oil-exploration contracts by the KRG in defiance of the oil ministry and the increasingly shaky-ties with Prime Minister al-Maliki’s Shiite alliance become ever noticeable.

All the while in the foreground, politicians stutter towards a much-publicised drive to bring the nation closer to reconciliation, reconstruction and stability.

Recent Arab motions to effectively reign-in what they perceive as Kurdish overreaching only served to fuel increasing antagonism.

150 Arab lawmakers, including both Shiites and Sunnis, issued a memorandum criticising the ‘go-it-alone’ mindset of the Kurds and attributing their stance on the holding of the much-delayed referendum on oil-rich Kirkuk, and signing of independent oil-deals as a threat against national unity.

As tensions simmer, the Sunni population continue to demand more influence in the national security forces, more representation in government and more of a direct sway on the future blueprint of Iraq, starting with the amendments to the Iraqi constitution which they see as unrepresentative of Sunnis who largely boycotted the vote.

However, despite the recent much-hailed gestures, meeting bold Sunni demands, whilst simultaneously seeking concord between the KRG and Baghdad, would be near impossible, at the current way each party is driving their bargain at the negotiating table.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Hewler Post (Kurdish), Peyamner, Various Misc.

Are Sunni-led Awakening Councils a Growing Success Story in Iraq or Ticking Time Bombs?

Leave a reply

The Expansion of Awakening Councils

Ninevah and Kirkuk provinces may be next likely areas for Sunni Sahwa. Are Sunni-led Awakening Councils a growing success story in Iraq or ticking time bombs?

A year after US President George W. Bush announced his controversial surge strategy to rapidly bring security and stability to Baghdad and the suburbs, a marked decline in violence has been reported and security has increasingly improved, a fact that even Bush’s Democratic challengers have found hard to deny. However, perhaps Bush’s greatest success story was not the effectiveness of the deployment of 30,000 additional US troops, but the onset and expansion of contentious Sunni local Sahwa, or Awakening Councils, armed and brokered by American forces.

The first tribal council in Anbar province was designed to take advantage of growing public unrest at the brutal al-Qaida tactics on the streets, with daily murders making life for communities untenable. Before then, the volatile Anbar region had been a notorious icon of the rampant Sunni-led insurgency.

The evident success of the Awakening Councils, also referred to at times as Concerned Citizens and other aliases, prompted the US government to expand the movement: it is now estimated to number at least 70,000 forces in mainly Sunni-dominated areas with about another 20,000 embedded in the Anbar police force.

On one hand, the disenfranchised Sunni population turning against al-Qaida forces as opposed to the traditional American “invaders” was naturally a welcome relief for US forces, seemingly stuck in a quagmire and still chasing an elusive exit strategy. On another hand, it marked a turn of fortunes in Iraq and made a terror-free and united Iraq at least a theoretical possibility.

Although at times embraced as a great tactical success for the US, the establishment of the councils has turned many a head within the Iraqi ethnic-mosaic and raised fear, predominantly among the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government, of bolstering Sunni militias only to increase the magnitude of their war with Shiite-controlled Iraqi Security Forces and Shiite militias, where Sunni’s hold a deep mistrust.

Due to tribal affiliations in Anbar province, the Iraqi government reluctantly accepted that the risk of rogue splinter groups was less, due to the influence of tribal leaders in the region.

However, further expansion into Diyala province – where al-Qaida relocated and formed a new, self-proclaimed Islamic State – and talk of mobilising Sunni forces further north into ethnically disputed areas in Ninevah and Kirkuk, have caused a great deal of unrest for the Kurdish administration and become another deeply contested political issue on the Iraqi national level.

Kurdish fear of unrest

The Kurdish objective has always been to keep Iraqi civil strife at bay from the prosperous and stable autonomous Kurdistan Region, which they have achieved with much sacrifice, at all costs. The hotly disputed, oil-rich city of Kirkuk has been an intense focus of terrorists and rogue elements intent on creating sufficient unrest in the city to derail a planned referendum on its future status and spark bitter infighting between Arabs and Kurds.

Extending the Awakening Councils to arm and support Sunni Arabs in the Kirkuk province may make some sense to the US administration, which is hell bent on evicting terror groups in the area, but the Kurds, with a deep mistrust of their Iraqi brethren, fear the worst from such a proposition.

With the likely annexation of Kirkuk to the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) once a referendum is finally held, the risk of a Sunni backlash is high. However, the potential bloodshed and unrest that could emanate from a newly armed Sunni Arab population would be catastrophic.

This led to a statement this week from Kurdish official Mohamded Mullah Qader, strongly emphasising that the Kurdish leadership would not allow the formation of any such councils in Kurdistan or surrounding ethnically disputed cities.

Kurdish officials and their Shiite counterparts in the Iraqi government have conceded that Awakening Councils have played a pivotal role in improving security in some restless and violent provinces. However, clearly the US may have unwittingly released a deadly virus into the Iraqi socio-political landscape by overlooking long-term implications of such a broad move by introducing another potential time bomb that Iraq could well do without.

Many fear that as thousands of Sunni insurgents dramatically turn against al-Qaida forces, sometime in the future if their demands are not met they may just as rapidly turn against the Iraqi government once more, only this time with a much more explosive velocity.

Awakening Council incentive

Evidently, newfound support from the once-avid American adversaries comes at a price. After years of bloodshed in Sunni-dominated provinces, the tribal sheiks and local population quickly realised that ongoing violence and support of terrorist cells was becoming increasingly fruitless when it came to supporting their basic necessities. The fierce sectarian passion that came from playing second fiddle to the Shiites in the new Iraq and being dominated by foreign occupiers was obviously high, but this could not be sustained under a backdrop of years of bloodshed, a crippling local economy, lack of food and medicine, and above all chronic unemployment.

Sunni militiamen demand, in return for ousting foreign terrorist organisations, permanent jobs and a greater influence in national Security Forces.

The new financial incentive is an evident advantage and highly popular among Awakening Council recruits.

As of December, total recruits are thought to be about 73,000, of which about 65,000 or so are paid a regular salary of an estimated $300-$400 a month, with tribal leaders and generals paid more.

Some reports have indicated that a big recruitment base has been Sunni teenagers between 14 and 16 years of age, who not long ago where brainwashed by hard-line cells and are now enjoying a substantial and previously unprecedented regular salary.

Currently, the group is active in eight provinces with about half of the Awakening Council forces in Baghdad alone. In addition to dealing a great blow to al-Qaida and terrorist organisations, their effective knowledge of key points in the districts of Baghdad and surrounding towns and their knowledge of the local insurgent network makes them a formidable ally.

Without winning the “hearts” of the Sunni population, America alone would find it impossible to permanently uproot terrorists and introduce long-term stability. For the US, the risk of future repercussions of encouraging a newly armed Sunni population was worth taking after nearly five years of battles with insurgents had proved inconclusive.

Pro-Sunni councils have been particularly effective in the so-called Sunni Triangle in Babil province, once a virtual terrorist production site and a conveyer belt for the distribution of explosives.

Awaking Council expansion

In Nineveh, Salahuddin, and Kirkuk provinces, only about 10,000 council forces are active with violence steadily rising. The US aim to bolster councils in these areas has caused a great deal of discomfort for the Kurds, who in the case of Mosul and Kirkuk share common neighbourhoods.

Recently, although currently on a smaller scale, Shiite Awakening Council recruiting, particularly around Baghdad, has increased.

As Awakening Councils have steadily increased in numbers and grown in effectiveness against al-Qaida forces the al-Qaida leaders have sent a strong warning to Sunni Muslims about taking up arms against them.

In a taped broadcast in late December, al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden warned that anyone who took up arms against his group would be considered traitors.

Earlier in January 2008, eight Shiite Awakening Council members and their leader were killed in the Shaab neighbourhood of Baghdad. In addition, in the past few months a number of prominent council leaders have been killed.

For the time being, at least, Sunni and Shiites may just have a common enemy to fight in Iraq.

Long-term ramifications

The Awakening Councils that have been formed with a communal underpinning and guided by local sheiks and tribal leaders are more likely to be effectively controlled and organised. However, the rapid expansion of the councils throughout the rest of the volatile, and now ethnically mixed, provinces may well mean that the number of armed Sunnis, alarmingly, could reach more than 100,000.

Even before the onset of a popular anti-insurgent movement, some sections of the Sunni population were divided. The risk of splinter groups joining al-Qaida-led forces cannot be discounted.

Furthermore, the independent-minded view of most of the tribal leaders formulates a key problem for the Iraqi government. If the Awakening Councils cannot be embedded into the Iraqi security force apparatus as they hope, thus diluting current Shiite domination of such forces, then potentially Iraq may well have three armed, autonomous, and formidable forces in the country: the established and widely respected Kurdish Peshmerga force, the Shiite-led Iraqi Security Forces and other regional Shiite militias, and an emboldened and dangerous Sunni force.

For the time being, the Iraqi government has been generally supportive of the councils while watching developments very closely in the background. Prominent Shiite leader Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim recently credited the councils with practicing an honourable national role and hailed the councils as an expression of unity against the enemies of Iraq.

Clearly, the key question is the long-term status of such councils. The primary question is whether the councils will the support the government for the long-term or whether they are just a more powerful substitute for the same insurgent forces that they helped eradicate.

For some Sunnis, the question is far greater now than driving the Christian “invaders” out. Increasing Iranian influence has taken equal footing to the “ill-fated” presence of their foreign occupiers.

Animosity toward their Shiite brethren is, however, untouched, and in reality this will remain in the long term. Centuries-old sectarian tension can never be swept aside with such a degree of ease. Perhaps the knowledge that they are now armed and protected inside strongholds may alleviate Sunni fears of being sidelined in the future Iraq, but deep mistrust of Shiite-dominated Iraqi Security Forces will remain until a satisfactory sectarian balance has been achieved.

Another key factor in the declining violence is the decision in the summer of 2007 by influential cleric Moqtada al-Sadr to temporarily cease fighting. This has contributed greatly to the drop in violence that the American administration has hailed. Once the powerful Mehdi Army is back in full swing, their influence on the sectarian stage will provide an interesting observation.

Conclusion

Iraq may in theory be heading toward stability and an era of improved security with a dramatic drop in violence and seemingly on a return to national harmony and co-existence: unfortunately, the lasting nature of short-term gains remains uncertain and to an extent artificial.

The Awakening Councils, although credited with playing a key role in bringing stability to Iraq, are supporting the security push under a number of caveats. For all the credibility they have mustered, the councils have equally stirred up fear, hostility, and deep mistrust.

Equally, what must not be overlooked is the significant fraction of Sunnis still fueling the insurgency and providing crucial support to terror networks.

Shiites fear that eventually, with more power, the councils may turn on them and suspected local forces may contain al-Qaida sympathisers wishing to infiltrate the Interior Ministry. Kurds equally fear Sunni Arab groups wreaking havoc on their region and their aim of bolstering and expanding their region.

As a reward for their efforts, the Sunnis want a bigger role in the Iraqi Security Forces and ultimately a bigger slice of the political cake. If they can be effectively enticed into supporting a democratic and economically sound Iraq that will provide future jobs, social services, and better opportunities, as we have witnessed in Sunni provinces, this may form a viable and attractive alternative to passionately pursuing sectarian loyalties and bloodshed.

However, reaching the stage where the shattered Iraqi economy can recover, with basic social services reinstated, medical facilities provided to all, and each household enjoying a comfortable wage and a good standard of living, may still be years away. The question of whether Iraqis are willing to succumb to more promises and wait patiently for another several years while experiencing daily discontent and resentment is very hard to determine.

Until a national unity government is truly established, harmony is short term and certainly reversible. Equally, a national unity government can never be established until all parties agree on the real hot topics, such as federalism, the future role of religion, the status of Kirkuk, oil sharing, and the future role of militias-topics that have been brushed aside for far too long.

As we have seen for almost five years in the Iraqi transitional road to democracy, promises are easy but real compromise is next to impossible. In spite of Bush’s claim, Iraq may not be a different place from a year ago.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Epoch Times, Online Opinion, Peyamner, Various Misc.

As Kosovo Moves Closer to Independence, Struggle for Self-determination Takes a New Twist

Leave a reply

The Serbs have long-considered Kosovo as a cradle of their heritage and nationalist struggle. However, it is ironic that as the legend of the Serbian defeat against Ottoman forces in 1389 in this small province gave it almost a mystical significance to Serbian nationalism, the recent drive towards full independence by Kosovo Albanians, marks the distinct end of the old Yugoslavia and Serbian imperialism.

In a further twist of irony, it was in Kosovo where the seeds for nationalist bloodshed were planted by former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, resulting in a costly ethnically- enthused civil war and the disintegration of Yugoslavia in the 1990’s.

Under UN administration, since NATO bombing halted Serbian forces brutally quelling an insurgency in 1998, the Kosovo independence motion has gained firm momentum.

This week after a deadline for international mediation efforts passed, the EU announced virtual unity on Kosovo. Crucially supported by the US administration, it is widely except that leaders of Kosovo’s Albanian majority would declare independence before May 2008 or even sooner.

Serbia, supported by Russia, has vehemently opposed independence. This week Russia warned that unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) could set off a vicious ripple affect across the Balkans and beyond.

However, calls for more discussions were seemingly deemed pointless by EU and the US. Mediators from the United States, European Union and Russia announced in a report to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, that months of talks had found no compromise on whether Kosovo should be independent or just self-ruled. The outcome was to virtually place the matter in the hands of the EU and crucially not the UN, making a resolution unlikely.

This paved the way to implement a roadmap orchestrated by United Nations envoy Martti Ahtisaari, which proposes a scheduled transition to independence.

Doubters fear that such a movement will only add venom to separatist campaigns across the world. After all, no resistance or national movement is launched without a solid basis or popular support. Why should the situation of a couple of millions Kosovo Albanians be any different?

Russia is dead-against the motion primarily as it would ignite tensions in Chechnya and other volatile restive provinces in its borders. Georgia is watchful over Abkhazia, where Cyprus, the main EU country to oppose independence, is deeply concerned fearing that it may promote a degree of legitimacy to the rogue state of Northern Cyprus.

Serbia may well launch a campaign to annex the Serb province of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Albania or Macedonia may attempt to form a union with Kosovo. The unpredictability and potential instability this brings to the region can well be off-set by the carrot of future EU membership for the likes of Serbia, however beyond the region, no country as much as Iraqi Kurdistan will be looking at the situation more avidly.

After all, Kurdish culture, history and heritage run thousands of years before the Kosovo Albanians. The population of the Kurds in Iraq alone is 6 million and close to 40 million beyond. With all the markings for a state of their own, Kurdistan was selfishly carved amongst highly oppressive regimes and the Kurdish question was left to rot like an unwanted corpse outside the United Nations and left to linger in the streets of international diplomacy.

Perhaps, double standards were common and almost excepted in the days gone by. However, this is a new age and Turkey in particular, remaining suspiciously quite over the Kosovo debate, will be taking firm notes.

If the United States and the EU can endorse and encourage a nationalist movement to safeguard the security of a minority then it should have no choice but to support a Kurdish state, oppressed on a much larger scale. Clearly, any logical and wise observer can see that the time is not right to declare independence in the age of such great hostility by the Turks, Persians and Arabs, but the international community should at a minimum champion the right of the Kurds to statehood and crucially setup and implement a similar roadmap it has so passionately supported in Kosovo and Palestine.

At a minimum, looming Kosovo independence sets a yard-stick for political struggles and adds a new dimension to the right of self-determination.

The Kurds around the world should take great heart form this debacle and celebrate Kosovan independence as much as the Albanians.