Category Archives: Kurdish Globe

Turkey’s peace initiative – ensuring that once rebels drop weapons, they are not picked up again

Leave a reply

The turn of the year has created a unique environment and momentum in Turkey for solving the age-old Kurdish question, better than any time in the history of the Turkish republic, culminating in Abdullah Ocalan’s Newroz ceasefire declaration and an on-going peace process.

While the current progress and general rhetoric is certainly positive, many obstacles lie head and the initiative can be easily derailed.

It has taken bold steps from both sides to get this far and settling a three decade armed struggle cannot be achieved without courageous steps, determination and real compromise and desire. While many in Turkey continue to believe there is no Kurdish question and what remains to be resolved is a “terrorist” problem, true resolution and reconciliation will only come with the acknowledgement that the Kurdish question and the PKK problem are one and the same.

The details of peace talks and agreements, other than through leaked press reports, have been generally concealed. The government needs to be clear and transparent in the negotiations and with practical steps it is willing to take.

These steps must mean wholesale gestures to the Kurds through parliamentary measures and not via a piecemeal carrot and stick approach.

The current debate about the withdrawal of PKK rebels within Turkey highlights the current sensitivity that continues to plague Turkey. The AKP government has refused demands to enshrine the disarmament and withdrawal of PKK rebels into legislation. It remains conscious of nationalist reservations or giving the PKK nemesis credibility or acclaim through any “public” withdrawal.

In the grander scheme of things, dropping of guns will not be an issue and it is likely that in Ocalan’s latest letter to be announced that he will push the rebels to disarm before withdrawing. It is ensuring that these guns are not picked up gain that is the issue.

If Turkish government concessions fail to materialise or appease the greater portion of Kurdish society, the process can easily unravel. Furthermore, without long-term peace and democratic measures, reflected in a constitution that deliver true rights for the Kurds and a level of regional autonomy enveloped with economy growth and investment in the south east, another armed group may simply fly the flag.

With new democratic channels, a constitution that protects Kurdish identity and new jobs, much needed public services and an improved standard of living, a new natural political climate can take hold in the Kurdish regions of Turkey.

Indeed the onset of a new Turkey is a win-win for Turks and Kurds, but for the PKK it has to realise that an end of violence is also win-win for all parts of Kurdistan. The new Kurdistan Region of Syria was hampered by its association with the PKK and a harsh line of Turkey. Peace in Turkey will also result in constructive steps by Ankara with Qamishli.

The anti-Assad stance of the Turkish government led to a somewhat predictable reinvigoration of Damascus ties with the PKK serving to “punish” and destabilise Turkey. The influence of PKK peace negotiations on the PYD can arguably already be seen with escalating tensions between YPG Kurdish forces and regime forces.

 

Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who for many is staking his political career in the rapprochement with Ocalan, is seeking to make a number of gains in one move.

It cannot ignore the onset of Syrian Kurdish autonomy which raises the nationalist stake for all Kurds and in the fast changing Middle East and surrounded by all four parts of Kurdistan, it can risk animosity with the Kurds at its peril.

Last but not least, peace with the PKK removes one remaining thorn in the already strong and prosperous relations between the Kurdistan Region and Ankara. With expanding energy ties with Erbil and unprecedented trade volumes not to mention the importance of strategic and political alliances with the Kurdistan Regional Government, Ankara can ill-afford to let out-dated nationalist principles mark the growing reality of a new middle Eastern order and with it the rise of the Kurds. Ankara can either ignore the Kurdish nationalist reality to its detriment or harness it for the betterment of Turkey’s regional and strategic goals.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc.

The Kurdish exodus of 1991 – the plight that transformed Kurdish destiny

Leave a reply

Triumph at time of great adversity – how national despair gave birth to the Kurdistan Region

This week marks the 22nd anniversary of the great Kurdish exodus of 1991 that was triggered by a cold-hearted retaliation by Saddam Hussein, resulting in a humanitarian plight that Kurds will never forget.

After popular uprisings in both Kurdish and Shiite areas in the aftermath of the First Gulf War, encouraged and then quickly abandoned by an idle U.S., Saddam used the full-force of his arsenal to rapidly quell the uprisings, ruthlessly killing thousands and driving two million Kurds to the Turkish and Iranian borders.

Thousands of Kurds died of starvation, disease and harsh conditions, if not the military might of Baathist forces.

The timing of the latest act of mass repression against the Kurds could not be more ironic. It was merely weeks after the US led coalition swiftly came to the aid of their oil rich friends in Kuwait, days after President George Bush encouraged Iraqis to take matters into their own hands and to compound the misery of the Kurds, it was just three years after the great genocide of Halabja in 1988.

The already ill-fated Kurdish plight undoubtedly hit a fresh low in 1991 and reinforced the feeling amongst Kurds that they have no friends but the mountains. Indeed it was those mountains that were the source of refuge in 1991 when in spite of the growing international media coverage on the Kurdish disaster, the world’s powers laboured far too long to respond.

It’s hard to forget that for their short-sighted strategic interests, the West played a blind-eye to the atrocities committed against the Kurds and in spite of his unforgivable crimes against humanity, kept Saddam in power.

In spite of the immense evidence at the time, the United Nations Sub-Committee on Human Rights inexplicably voted in August 1988 not to condemn Iraq for human rights violations.

All the while, Saddam was further strengthened with the West providing new war planes, more advanced scud capabilities and not forgetting the ingredients for the very chemical weapons that were used against the Kurds.

The thousands of Kurdish refugees were an unwelcome site on the borders for Turks battling their own restive Kurdish population and Kurds endured further pain that they should never have faced upon arriving to what they saw as safety. How ironic that Kurds evicted from their own homes, were treated like foreigners and unwanted guests in the other parts of greater Kurdistan, the lands of their forefathers.

At times greatest of triumphs come at times of great adversity and so it proved for the valiant Kurds. The bravery in the face of the Kurdish uprising of 1991 and the tough conditions for the millions that fled soon after with crucial international spotlight that followed is now a milestone in the Kurdish renaissance and the ushering of a new era in their history.

Of course, great credit must still be placed to the coalition forces and in particular the then UK Prime Minister, John Major, who despite common objection to his stance broke ranks and played a great hand in realising his vision of a Kurdish Safe Haven and the effectively the birth of the Kurdistan Region.

However, as much as Kurds will always be grateful for the ousting of Saddam, at any time for that matter, it cannot be overlooked that for far too long Kurds were left to fend for themselves and in cases such as the Algiers Accord of 1975 fed to the lions.

The Iraqi liberation of 2003 came years too late for the Kurds. It was the strategic interests of the West and the Arab world that led to the mass support for Saddam, particularly in the bloody Iran-Iraq war. Saddam was viewed as a secular bulwark against Islamist revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini and the resurgence of a powerful Iran.

The moral of the story is that as grateful as the Kurds are to the Americans, the U.S. had more pretext to liberate Iraqi in 1991 than 2003 and they only toppled Saddam after the monster that the West created could no longer be contained.

Fast forward 22 years since the great exodus, and Kurdish fortunes could not be more different. The sacrifices of those who fled and of the Peshmerga who bravely battled Saddam were not in vain and indeed it was exactly those actions that make the Kurdistan of today possible.

2003 may have heralded the start of the golden age for Kurdistan but it was 1991 that was the true spark and the “Spring” that transformed the destiny of Kurdistan. It is Kurdish sacrifice, spirit, bravery and desire that pushed the Kurds over the line, more than coalition forces ever did.

Now 2013 marks a new passage in the history of the Kurds and the beginning of a fresh dawn. The Spring Equinox or Newroz always had a special place in people’s hearts and in the numerous milestones it has heralded in recent years. The talk in the Kurdistan Region of today is about economic boom, new construction, oil infrastructure and prosperity. Meanwhile, the talk in Turkey is about peace, breaking taboos and finally taking bold steps to resolving the age-old Kurdish problem. All the while, the Syrian Kurds, breaking from the shadows of their Kurdish brethren, are now key components of both the Syrian and Kurdish national and political landscape.

Times have changed and with the onset of the Arab Spring and the unravelling of the Middle East, the Kurds have risen in prominence. 

The Kurdish determination and never-say-die spirit is the very reason for their resurgence today and the fruits of the labours of Kurds in all respective parts of Kurdistan.

But lofty heights and new dawns must bring a firm acknowledgment and great appreciation of the past. The Kurds cannot and will not ever forget the tragedies and travesties of yesteryears.

The Kurdish best friends remain their own brethren and indeed their mystical mountains.

It is all the more ironic that having played such a great role in the repression of the Kurds, some Arabs in Baghdad remain unrepentant and indeed despise the Kurdish economic and strategic drive.

Even America, who stood idle for so long while the Kurds were persecuted, now look to growing Kurdish power and autonomy with weariness, only not to upset their Iraqi friends and the balance of their interests in the Middle East.

The growing energy ties between Ankara and Kurdistan, promoted just this week by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is viewed as the source of Iraq’s disintegration, while America and the West can clearly see it is the policies of Baghdad and specifically Nouri al-Maliki that has been the real wedge in Iraq.

The Kurds must take lessons from their past and ensure their destiny remains firmly in their own hands. The dependence on Baghdad for oil revenues and oil exports is one last umbilical cord that Kurds must cut.

The building of new pipelines and new energy deals with Turkey are protected by Iraq’s constitution.

Kurds must not follow policies to suit their American allies or the wishes of Baghdad but those that benefit the Kurdish nation.

After decades of repression, destruction of thousands of villages and chemical bombings, while much of the world’s powers remained idle, Kurdistan deserves that much.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc.

Kurdish oil exports, one remaining Baghdad noose that Kurds must break

Leave a reply

The latest action by the Iraqi parliament to pass the national 2013 budget despite a boycott by Kurdish MPs is just the tip of the ice-berg in Iraq.

Tensions have been brewing to dangerous levels between the Kurdistan Region and Baghdad for some time and the lack of real intent to mend bridges and cool tensions is testament to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s reluctance to enact a government of partnership and to pursue national reconciliation.

Fast approaching a decade since the liberation of Iraq and the fragmented Iraqi horizon, continuously poisoned by common distrust, lack of unity and lack of true compromise, continues to blight Iraqi society in 2013 much in the same way as it did in 2003.

Maliki’s growing authoritarian policies and the latest decision to pass the budget without Kurdish involvement and approval may have severely irked the Kurds, but it’s wrong to focus merely on the Erbil-Baghdad divide as the source of Iraqi troubles.

The majority of MPs from al-Iraqiya had also boycotted the budget vote and the coalition and power sharing agreement in Baghdad has all but evaporated. Tensions with long-time disaffected Sunnis, greatly encouraged by the Syrian Sunni ascendancy to power, is steadily gathering pace and Sunni demonstrations since the back-end of 2012 still run rife in Sunni strongholds with protestor deaths at the hands of predominantly Shiite forces adding fuel to the fire. Even Shiites within the State of Law, including influential cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, have expressed concern.

Finance minister Rafa al-Essawi and agriculture minister Izzeddin al-Dolah are two high-profile Sunni resignations in recent weeks over the current protests.

Kurdish ire

The strong Kurdish reaction to the passing of budget in Baghdad was understandable.

With only 168 out of 325 MPs present due to the boycott, the bill may have been passed due to a “technicality” with a thin majority obtained but not involving the Kurds who are such vital components of the coalition and in the union with Iraq is a dangerous development.

Oil sharing and foreign oil contracts are not new bones of contention between the Kurds and Baghdad. Oil exports in Kurdistan have been very much stop-start for a number of years. The source of discontent in the 2013 budget was the amount set aside to pay oil companies in Kurdistan, with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) insisting it is owed $3.5 billion for costs accumulated by foreign oil companies over the past 3 years whilst Baghdad has allotted only $644.33 million in the latest budget.

This issue was one of the main reasons the 2013 budget was not ratified although the Iraqi cabinet approved the budget in October.

The frequent theme from Baghdad over the past several years is that oil contracts signed by KRG are illegal, in spite of the stipulations afforded in the national constitution. Therefore it is hardly surprising that Baghdad continues a hard-handed approach in dealing with the oil sharing issue. Ironically, passing a national hydrocarbon law gathering dust since 2007 that would end all disputes is not even seen as an immediate priority.

The State of Law had argued that Kurds were not entitled to compensation as they had not contributed their fair share to national exports.

As Kurds have insisted for years, any revenue from oil exports in Kurdistan will go to a central pot where Kurds will take their allotted share. Narrow-minded political goals in Baghdad, has failed to realise that a strong oil industry in Kurdistan is a bonus for all Iraqis. Baghdad may have costs of foreign oil companies to cover but what about the billions of surplus revenue that follows? Anyone would think Baghdad is taking a financial loss in dealing with Kurdish oil.

Budget imbalance

Baghdad has continuously refused to pay Peshmerga costs which are stipulated in the constitution. Yet it has been paying salaries of Sahwa Council Sunni militia for a number of years to appease Sunnis and has even increased their salaries in this year’s budget to try and dampen Sunni demonstrations.

Furthermore, whilst Kurdistan develops at a rapid pace but fails to receive fair share of revenues it needs, the province of Nineveh failed to spend around $6 billion of its $10 billion share in the 2012 budget. There is a similar pattern in other provinces.

Next steps for the Kurds

Undoubtedly, the budget issue will make prospects of reconciliation worse between Erbil and Baghdad. The continued halt of oil exports by Kurdistan may seem logical, but it’s counter-productive as Kurdistan needs to press-ahead with its oil industry and economic growth.

The KRG oil ministry confirmed it will not send any agreed quantities of oil unless Baghdad pays the relevant costs to foreign companies.

Control of oil exports is one remaining noose that Baghdad has around the Kurds. If the Kurds have an independent oil infrastructure and an oil pipeline purely on Kurdish soil, it greatly diminishes Baghdad’s bargaining power.

Kurdistan has greatly flourished in recent years whilst the south continues to lag behind, do the Kurds continue with ties in Baghdad or take unilateral measures in deciding national interests?

It begs the question of whether Baghdad sees the Kurds as true partners and looks to Kurdish achievements as an achievement for all of Iraq or does it want to see Kurdistan undermined, regress and stagnate? The Kurds would say recent disputes over Dijla Operations Command, halting of oil exports and now the national budget answers that question.

Baghdad has been intent on scaring oil companies from working in Kurdistan for a while. Giving the option to oil companies of either “us or them” is anything but the tone of partnership.

Kurdistan needs to break that noose, develop an independent oil pipeline and accumulate revenues directly and pay foreign companies from their own budget.

This stance was also suggested by Iraqi Kurdish MP Muhsin al-Saadoun as a measure against the federal government for side-lining the Kurds.

Naturally, Maliki led coalition hit back by threatening to deduct Kurdistan Region’s share of the federal budget.

Either way, something has to give and inaction by the Kurdish leadership is a non-starter. Kurdistan must ensure the destiny of Kurdish affairs is determined by Kurdish hands.

What real benefit have the Kurds ever received from Iraq’s immense oil wealth since Iraq’s creation? Now Kurdish oil must be the source of Kurdistan’s prosperity and to give back to its long-time suffering people and should not be viewed as somewhat of a curse.

Other issues

The Shiite-government announcement of the formation of a new military force under the name of the “al-Jazeera and Badiya Force” situated in the disputed city of Sinjar, which borders Syria is yet another confrontational step by Maliki. A pro-Assad Baghdad is vying for control of its Syrian borders, possibly due to pressure from Iran, with signs this week that the violence is spilling across the border. Kurds have a far different view of Assad and are unlikely to relinquish border control in their own territories to propel Baghdad’s goals in Syria.

Baghdad decision not to pay foreign companies could well be a punishment for Kurdistan’s growing partnership with Turkey and its anti-Assad stance.

Since Maliki assumed a second term in office, Iraq has been in decline. With Sunni’s growing boldness in standing-up to Shiite dominance, who will be around to broker the next government or mediate between Sunnis and Shiites? It certainly won’t be the Kurds.

A previous statement by Kurdistan President Massoud Barzani summed up current sentiments, “Iraq’s citizens are simply tired of Baghdad’s … language of threat and intimidation, which in the cynical pursuit of narrow political agendas only serves to create division and strife.”

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc.

In the new Turkey, how happy is the one who says “I am a Turk or a Kurd”

Leave a reply

The Imrali peace process in Turkey has created an environment, support base and sense of expectancy that has never been seen before. There is great hope that the new bridge building initiative will lead to the ultimate quest of long-term peace, laying down of arms and a new chapter in the history of the Turkish republic.

Public opinion both within Turkish and Kurdish circles indicate that people are fed up with decades of war and suffering and yearn for peace. Even the staunchest Turkish nationalist has come to terms with the limits of military power. How many billions of dollars of lost expenditure and sheer resources been consumed by one of the largest armies in NATO, yet almost 3 decades on and the loss of thousands of lives of later, the cyclic battle has only served to deepen the divide and inflame tensions  in Turkey.

The open keenness of the AKP government and official support for talks with imprisoned PKK leader, Abdullah Ocalan, long-time public enemy number one and now seemingly the key facilitator to peace, speaks volumes about changing sentiment.

The lack of a genuine desire for talks, absence of real concessions and common mistrust have in the past quickly clouded any prospects of real peace. Indeed only sincere and bold efforts will realise a new dawn.

In a second visit by a Pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) delegation since the turn of the year, deputies Sırrı Süreyya Önder, Pervin Buldan and Altan Tan visited Ocalan in the island prison of Imrali to discuss and outline the next steps in the peace process.

Although, the roadmap rumoured to have been agreed between Ocalan and Hakan Fidan, the head of National Intelligence Organization (MİT), was not revealed or the specific details of the delegations meeting with Ocalan was not known, according to the three BDP members, Ocalan had referred to the new peace process as a historic step and emphasised on all sides to show “care and sensitivity.”

There were also indications from the BDP delegation’s statement that Ocalan and the PKK were ready to release captives, likely in exchange for release of KCK prisoners, as part of the initial steps.

The roadmap and next steps are likely to be publicised shortly by both sides, although the sense of caution is understandable. Current hopes and expectations have to be put into perspective.  It has taken years and much suffering to even reach this juncture, both sides will maneuverer carefully, but what is clear is that if the chance for peace is missed this time around, Turkey may regret it for many years to come.

The whole unnecessary and largely irrelevant argument over which BDP members would visit Ocalan in the latest round of talks shows the sensitivity and wariness of the Turkish government. It wants to be seen to have the upper-hand in this process and that it is calling the shots. The AKP government as ever have the difficult job of appeasing all sections of society, especially nationalists hawks, who have often put a spanner in the works.

The Turkish government must also expect some responsibility for the lack of Kurdish interlocutors on the ground. The PKK has continued to dominate the Kurdish landscape and Ocalan, in spite of his virtual isolation for 14 years, still holds the largest sway and reverence amongst the Kurds. BDP politicians are the very people voted by Turkish citizens in a legal and transparent way and who have seats in the Turkish parliament, and yet the BDP has been blighted by both the governments’ tendency to undermine their influence and PKK’s continuing dominance of Kurdish hearts and minds. The 10% parliamentary threshold has hardly helped the Kurdish political and democratic movement.

The Kurdish rebels are willing to initiate a ceasefire and withdraw beyond the Turkish borders, after all “ceasefires”, albeit unilateral ones are not new. But it is whether the rebels can be adequately appeased. Are rebels just going to simply lay down their arms after decades of battle and thousands of sacrifices? Of course, as part of any precondition, Turkey must take bold and historic steps.

There is no better place to start then the very political and social blueprint of the country, its constitution. A new constitution that recognises the Kurds and enshrines their rights, including a level of autonomy, is of paramount importance. The new Turkey must embrace a partnership between Kurds and Turks, Turkey will always comprise of two components but who live, work and prosper together hand-in-hand and side-by-side. This new Turkey must be a bi-national state based on equality and brotherhood.

Public surveys are important gauge of government performance and public opinion but any decision on the Imrali process cannot and will not satisfy all parties. Sometimes politicians must make decisions not to just appease the present constituents but to also safeguard the future wellbeing of a nation.

The will and desire of the Kurds and Turks must not be broken by minorities who will continue to insist on violent means of achieving their goals or by those who hold onto imperialistic ideals. There are many parties within Turkey and the surrounding region who seek to derail peace.

Surveys on whether Kurds and Turks can live together detract from the bigger picture, Kurds and Turks have lived together, largely peacefully, for hundreds of years.

The time for violence and armed rebellions is certainly over but so is the time for out-dated ethos and a society based on inequality. In the new Turkey, how happy is the one who says I am a Turk or a Kurd.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources:  Various Misc.

Interview with Nadhim Zahawi – Kurdish UK MP

Leave a reply

In May 2010, Nadhim Zahawi became the first Kurd to be elected as Minister of Parliament (MP) in the UK. Zahawi secured the historic constituency of Stratford-on-Avon in the iconic and oldest parliament in the world. Zahawi talked to the Globe’s Bashdar Ismaeel on a number of important topics, including making history, his roles as MP and co-chairman of the All Party Group for Kurdistan and his hard-work and determination in getting the Kurdish genocide recognised in UK parliament.

As the symbolic first Kurdish MP elected to UK parliament, what is the significance to you and also the Kurdish nation as a whole in receiving such an honour?

It is a real privilege to be a Member of Parliament (MP), in what is the mother of all parliaments coming up to its 750th birthday, and of course to represent a constituency like Stratford-On-Avon, with its immense history and previous office holders that have included John Profumo, Angus Maude, to the enlarged constituency which was Antony Eden’s of course. It is an incredible place and to have elected Nadhim Zahawi as their representative is a great privilege and a great honour.

I think it is important that all ethnic groups, especially for Kurds, who decide to make their home anywhere in Europe, whether in the UK, Sweden, Germany or elsewhere, to engage in the political process, the civic process, to be become councillors, governors of schools and MPs, to get involved in their local charities and  local communities. Because at the end of the day, if you are able to contribute to the society that you live in, then you can also hopefully help those back home.

Never forgot your heritage and your ancestry and that combination are incredibly powerful, and many other ethnic groups have done incredibly well around the world and have been able to help their people in their countries of origin.

Of course, your first priority will naturally be serving the people of Stratford-on-Avon, who have chosen you as their MP, but as a Kurd, how are you working to raise the Kurdish cause and improve UK ties with Kurdistan?

I think you’re absolutely right. My first, second and third priority is to serve the people of Stratford-on-Avon. They put me here to be their champion, to be able to represent them at every level in Westminster. But you are also right in that I think it is important as I mentioned earlier that everyone remembers their history, heritage and background, and I believe it is a duty upon all Kurds, who have become US citizens, Swedish, German or British, to do their bit for the Kurdish cause. I think I have contributed in the past two and a half years, the first thing I did when I came here is to join the All Party Group for Kurdistan and I am now co-chairman of that group. We then decided to spend a lot of time, resource and effort into looking at the genocide that occurred in Iraq and on the Kurdish people.  We have a genocide committee, which I asked one of my colleagues here, an excellent campaigner MP, Robert Halfon, to chair and which is making real progress now.

We had a petition that has now received almost 30,000 signatures, we would like to see it get to 100,000 and I would ask every Kurd, whether in Kurdistan or the UK, to ask their friends and family to sign the petition. It is very important that the British parliament recognises the genocide of Kurdistan, coming up to 25th anniversary of Anfal and of course Halabja. So this is an important year and it is important that we play our part to ensure that the world knows and never forgets.

 

UK-Kurdistan ties were solidified in 1991, and have generally remained strong up to today, could the UK do more in Kurdistan? Is the UK government doing enough to support Kurdistan economically, politically and to promote business?

Whenever we talk about relations between Kurdistan and the UK, we have to recognise the contribution that John Major made in protecting the Kurdish people in 1991 with the no-fly zones. The current Prime Minister in the chamber and the Foreign Secretary in the chamber, William Hague, referred to that protection of the Kurds because the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari, at a meeting of foreign ministers during the Libya crisis, when Britain stepped in to do the same thing, to protect the Libyan people, was present and reminded the room that he would not be in that room if it hadn’t been for John Major protecting the Kurdish people. So one must always remember that.

I think business wise we can always do more. I would like to see direct flights from the UK to Erbil, Sulaimaniya and hopefully Duhok and other cities in Iraq as they develop their aviation infrastructure. I would like to see more UK businesses been involved in the oil and gas industry, which is becoming an incredibly important industry in Kurdistan. In fact, Kurdistan is now referred to as the exploration capital of the world, thanks to the hard work of Dr. Ashti Hawrami, who has been an extraordinary Minister of Natural Resources, and a real visionary for the country. But as he would say, if he were here, we need to see more service companies coming in because it is not just the upstream that you need, the Exxon’s, Chevron’s and Total’s and the Talisman’s of this world. But you also need the service sector, because the service sector at the end of the day are the ones that do the hard work to ensure that the oil and gas is extracted and delivered internationally and to the domestic market.

In other areas, we are very strong in the UK in accountancy, in the legal system and in various other industries. 2012 saw the UK become a net exporter of cars. Certainly in my constituency of Stratford-on-Avon, I have got Jaguar, Land Rover and Aston Martin, head-quartered on the borders of my constituency. So the automotive industry needs to be reflected in a bigger way, although I know that Jaguar and Land Rover are doing great business in Kurdistan and can only do more.

All these sectors need to be enhanced and the UKTI is working very hard with the KRG representative office in UK, who do a great job I have to say. The representative office in London is best of breed, in organising conferences and match making between business and needs in Kurdistan. There was a fantastic water and agri conference here with the minister coming over, with 18 projects that were very clearly outlined with clear targets, with British businesses to look at and hopefully bid for.

In terms of electricity, Kurdistan benefits from almost 24-hours of electricity provision, but the consumption has increased exponentially with more industry coming in and the rise in consumer consumption. We can do more with our British companies. In the gas industry, British Gas and others should get involved in our incredible gas finds in Kurdistan.

So in all these areas, I try and work very hard, both in my role as the co-chairman of the All Party Group but also I sit on the Business Innovation Skill Select Committee, that is a business department that I scrutinise and I always make sure that they are playing their role in delivering that relationship between the UK and Kurdistan.

The great persecution and terror of the Baathist regime is one of the reasons why you and many other Kurds fled to sanctuary of the UK, in the ethno-sectarian turbulence of Iraq and the monopolisation of power in Baghdad is the UK ready to protect Kurdistan and Kurdish people against any new tyranny?

In the post Saddam Hussein Iraq, the political groups in Iraq came together and drafted a constitution, which the Iraqi people ratified through a referendum. It is very important that the whole of Iraq and all its political components respect that constitution and that constitutional arrangement. That arrangement recognises very clearly the rights of the Kurdish people, the autonomous right of the Kurds, their parliament and the ability to design the way they want to be governed is all there. There are issues, of course, around Kirkuk, the hydrocarbons law and a number of other issues which do need addressing.

I think it is important that Iraq continues on the journey of democratisation. And democracy by the way, isn’t just about a cross in the ballot box on a piece of paper, democracy is about establishing and strengthening institutions that protect the rights of all citizens of a country, especially minorities. Civilised societies are judged by how they deal with their minorities and how they protect those minorities, as opposed the mere wishes of the majority. I think it is very important that all Iraqi politicians remember that and it is very important that those institutions are enhanced and supported. What I mean by that is rule of law and an independent judiciary that in no way is influenced by politicians and politics. Like in the UK, nobody in their right mind would dream that a judge in any way would make a decision based on who is in government and wanting to please that party in government.

This needs to be the same in Iraq for people to trust the judiciary; they have to feel that the judiciary is truly independent. An independent and robust media that is also responsible needs to be established, and protected from the state and other areas of government. The sooner that Iraq and its political groups continue that journey, the better it is for the whole of Iraq.

 

Kosovo, South Sudan are just recent examples of new states assuming their right to self-determination and been support by the likes of the UK and the international community while Kurdistan has been cruelly denied, as we say in English is “what’s good for the gander, good for the geese”?

I think the right to self-determination is a basic human right. You look at what we are doing here in our own union, where the Scottish people and the ruling power of Scotland, the Scottish Nationalist Party, have campaigned on a platform of independence as far as they are concerned and wanted a referendum. Of course, my government here, led by David Cameron, recognised that and have granted a referendum. Actually, I think that you will find the majority of the Scottish people will choose to remain within the union because they see the strength of the union and the union as something incredibly valuable. But they have that right and to deny that right to any human been would be wrong.

In saying that, I also think that as far as the UK is concerned, in its focus on developing Kurdistan, in making sure that people have good jobs to go to, children have great schools to go to, when people are ill they have fantastic health service that looks after them, the elderly and frail are well looked after, there is economic dynamism, the economy is growing. If you look at nations around the world, none was more battered and bruised than the German people or the Japanese people after the Second World War, and the way they picked themselves up was through economic development and growth. The way they become world beaters is through the understanding that if you are economically powerful, then you have a seat at the table, you matter in the world.

I wouldn’t be arrogant enough to advise the political leadership in Kurdistan, other than to say you are doing the right thing in focusing on economic development and making sure that is in place because that is the building block for you to then able to begin to consider issues like self-determination and what the Kurdish people ultimately dream of.

Approaching 3 years since been elected Stratford-on-Avon, how do you look back on your time and achievements to date?

Stratford-on-Avon is a wonderful constituency. It has 79 villages and hamlets, wonderful market towns, and of course the great town of Stratford-upon-Avon where that extraordinary poet and author, William Shakespeare was born and where his resting place lies.

I have had almost 3 years here, your quite right. I have focused on my select committee work, the Business Innovation Skill Select Committee, because my background as a businessman before entering this place was running a public company here in the UK. Understanding the innovation space helped me to be elected to that select committee. By the way, for the first time in the history of our parliament, the select committee was elected as opposed to appointed, which gave a stronger mandate because if they were appointed then seniority may have played a bigger role, therefore, many of the new intake would not have got onto the select committee. Select committees are very important in our parliamentary system. So that for me has been a major achievement.

I organised and led a rebellion against my own government, which one must not do too often if one wants to progress in government, but I felt that the House of Lords reform bill was not one that I could support. Abolishing the House of Lords and replacing it with an elected Senate, I don’t think would have produced a better and healthier democracy. You only have to ask the Americans what they think of their Senate and Congress and the deadlock that they get in their system isn’t particularly healthy for decision making and democracy. I rebelled on that with the support of my association and my constituents; there were many letters and email supporting my position on that.

Other than that single rebellion, I work to promote and support my government. We are doing some very important work here in reforming the government. Remember in 2010, the UK was borrowing something like a £160 billion pounds a year, that’s the deficit. That’s the difference between what we were getting in terms of tax intake into the exchequer, because of course, the government doesn’t have its own money, and it’s yours and my money that we spend in government. Now, we have reduced that deficit down to £120 billion so or by a quarter. Nevertheless, if you do the arithmetic, we are still borrowing £426 million pounds a day.   So every time you got to bed and wake up, we notch up another £426 million in debt. That’s what we inherited, an economic mess from the previous government.

We are trying to sort that out, we are trying to shrink the size of government debt, focus spending on those who need it most, and look at the reforms in welfare, focusing on people who need it most but also making sure that work always pays. You will see the pilot coming in April with Universal Credit that we rolled out nationwide. The reforms in education have been extraordinary, if you look at what we have done with education under Michael Gove, to free up schools so that the headmaster and the governing bodies can make real decisions and the parents know exactly who is in charge, so if there is a failure in the system, they know who to go to and there is an individual that is responsible. It’s the head teacher and the governing board, not some faceless bureaucrat in local government or in Whitehall, allowing them to use those budgets where they need to use them and where they can, if they want to, pay extra bonuses for great teachers to come into the school who have done particularly well.

We started in 2010 with around 200 academies and now we have over 2200, and of course balancing the books, reforming education and welfare are the 3 major policies. I think that in 2015 we will be judged on those. If we have delivered on those 3 things, then our prospects of winning an election outright will be incredibly high.

As an MP, what are the key items on your agenda in the UK political sphere? Finally, what are your personal political aspirations?

Personally, I want to be known as the secretary of state for Stratford-On-Avon, this is my ambition. I said that to my association, when they selected me as their candidate to be their MP. I have a wonderful constituency; I think the best in the England. The heart of England as it’s referred to. I want to be able to serve my constituents and make sure that their voices are heard in Westminster. So that’s my goal.

In terms of my focus, we are half-way through the parliament, so the next half of parliament is all about delivery and all about implementation. So my work in the select committee is making sure for example, the Biz departments, which looks after university tuition fees as well as business so that the UKTI and other bits of business promotion is doing well. In terms of reforms in tuition fees, the evidence at the moment points towards a real success story in terms of the reforms we have put through to ensure that our universities continue to be well beaters.

If you look at our reputation around the world, we are second only to America in terms of our university education. Kurdistan has been one of our major clients, in fact Kurdistan has sent over 1250 students to the UK on scholarships.

Many senior politicians in Kurdistan including Ministry of Foreign Relations, Kak Falah, who was a scholar here, did their education in the UK. Kak Barham was educated here, and Kak Dilawar who was the Minister of Education before was at Nottingham University. Wherever you go in the world, not just in Kurdistan, but as far as Malaysia to Brazil, senior politicians, and senior business people will say I went to a university in your country in England. So it’s a very important export for that country. My focus is the department that I scrutinise; that I hold to account in delivering on those things.

I think if every politician, all the select committee, is focused on those things, so the Treasury Select Committee, the Health Select Committee, education and welfare departments all focused on delivery, we will be in a good position come 2015 to point to the delivery on the ground for people that put us here to serve them.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources:  Various Misc.

The ironic American-Turkish twist on Kurdistan

Leave a reply

The Middle East can be an ironic stage. Only a few years ago, the US administration, deep in its Iraqi quagmire, was reassuring the Turks about the unity of Iraq and pressing an anxious Ankara towards diplomacy over potential conflict with Kurdistan.

Fast forward to 2013, and it is the Americans who are worried that increasingly close alliances between Ankara and Erbil is fuelling the disintegration of Iraq. American views are mirrored by Baghdad who accuses Turkey of dividing Iraq.

There is no doubt that ties between Turkey and the Kurdistan Region are miles apart from that of 2008 when Turkey invaded, harsh rhetoric was the norm and even recognition of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) was a bitter pill to swallow.

But in the fast changing socio-political whirlwind of the new Middle East, 5 years is an awfully long time. Turkey and the Iraqi Kurds have become natural allies and have much to gain politically and economically, in particular from Kurdistan’s immense energy potential.

And it is these energy ties that continue to underpin and consolidate strong relations between both governments that are the source of discomfort for Baghdad and Washington.

Baghdad’s all too frequent cries and threats against KRG energy deals with foreign firms is hardly a new phenomenon nor has it deterred the Kurds or oil majors who have started to stream in. The underlining question is what are the Kurds doing illegally? Are they breaking laws or is Baghdad’s only gripe Kurdistan’s growing strategic clout and economic prominence?

In a further twist of irony, while Washington has tried to slow down Kurdistan’s growing independence and close ties with Ankara, US oil majors Chevron and Exxon-Mobil have signed key agreements with the KRG. This is in addition to Total and Gazprom who have joined the ranks.

If it was so illegal to deal with Kurdistan and such deals were “unconstitutional”, why would oil majors flock to do business?

There is growing talk of a “secret” framework agreement signed between Turkey and the KRG around the transportation and marketing of oil and gas from Kurdistan directly to Turkey.

Kurdish plans to build an independent pipeline to Turkish ports are hardly a secret or a new initiative. Broad plans including oil pipe-lines were announced publicly last year at the international energy conference hosted in Erbil.

It goes without saying the political importance of a national hydro-carbon law for Iraq, but 6 years since the last draft was sidelined, efforts to reconcile differences have been lacking and Nouri al-Maliki’s government has done little to bridge major disputes with Kurdistan, and not only in the energy sector.

The Kurds are faced with a predicament to either wait indefinitely on Baghdad and be at their mercy on oil exports or drive their own destiny with the legal basis to do so.

The stop start nature of oil exports via Kurdistan and the bitter disputes over payments to foreign companies is synonymous with many other disputes between Erbil and Baghdad.

The control of oil exports is one remaining noose that Baghdad has around Kurdistan and this is also manipulated in other political struggles against the Kurds.

Recently, KRG has started to export independently via trucks to meet domestic demand much to the fury of Baghdad. But it appears that with Turkish support and growing confidence, the Kurdish patience with the Baghdad waiting game is running thin.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in a major boost to Kurdish ties, defended Turkish energy cooperation with Kurdistan. Erdogan deemed such ties as legal and in line with Iraq’s constitution and stated they were merely helping their neighbour meet their needs.

Political ramifications

There is no doubt that Turkish ties with America has rapidly cooled, especially as Turkey has looked increasingly east. Turkey is attempting to adapt to a new Middle East, seeks a proactive role in current conflicts, particularly in Syria, while it perceives the Obama administration as increasingly distant, slow and indecisive.

Washington is particularly uneasy about deteriorating Turkish ties with Israel and cautioned Turkey on recent “inflammatory” statements.

Turkey has also realised necessity of peace at home at a time of Middle Eastern sandstorms with a new reach-out to the PKK and its own Kurds. It deems new strategic relations with the Iraqi Kurds as a bridge with its own Kurdish community.

Closer cooperation with Iraqi Kurds comes at a time when Turkey is increasingly wary of Maliki and his Iranian influence.

U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, Francis J. Ricciardone, warned that “If Turkey and Iraq fail to optimize their economic relations… There could be more violent conflict in Iraq and the forces of disintegration within Iraq could be emboldened.”

This follows previous warnings by Ricciardone and other senior US diplomats.

With Maliki at the helm and with a continuous policy of lip-service to implementation of key constitutional articles, division and the disintegration of Iraq is intensifying. There is no fear of something breaking when it is already broke.

With a fragile government, monopolisation of power under Maliki, renewed sectarianism, a lack of security and deep distrust and discord throughout Iraqi circles, is it really the Kurds who are the source of the Iraqi divide?

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources:  Various Misc.

A new Syria in a new Middle East

Leave a reply

As the West remains idle, Syrians continue to suffer at large

The international community continues to tip-toe around the Syrian crisis, while almost two years into the bloody conflict, the death toll rapidly increases and thousands more refugees are forced to flee across the borders.

Syria may have much greater socio-political, sectarian and strategic connotations than Libya, but the ironies cannot be overlooked. Just when will the United States, the E.U. or the U.N. deem enough is enough?

60,000 deaths, 700,000 refugees and masses amounts of destruction and suffering later and yet the current conflict in Syria is intensifying and worsening by the day.

Failings of the West

The Western powers have greatly encouraged the Syrian revolution and the overthrow of Bashar Assad but have failed to take practical steps that would lead to the ultimate end-goal – the end of the regime.

The current predicament in Syria has echoes of the 1991 uprising in Iraq, which was encouraged and promoted by the US led coalition at the time, but as the brutality of Saddam Hussein’s arsenal sliced through Kurdish and Shiite ranks, killing thousands and sending hundreds of thousands of Kurdish refugees into desperate situations in the process, the West stood largely idle.

The images of bodies of over a hundred executed men, recovered from a river in Aleppo, is a disturbing summary of where Syria finds itself today or in the words of UN special envoy for Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, the “unprecedented levels of horror” that Syria has reached.

Ironically, as the Syrian conflict rumbles on, Western powers have hailed the impact of the intervention, unity and coordination between NATO, EU, UN and regional African forces in Mali. Such was the deemed urgency that the intervention in Mali was relatively swift and without contention.

Such urgency is needed in Syria, if not for the sake of the rebels, then to alleviate the humanitarian crisis of millions of innocent civilians. It is the duty of all those who believe in democracy and human rights.

International divide

The regional and international divide over Syrian remains great. The Syrian opposition and the Western powers have long insisted that Assad’s days are numbered and any little legitimacy he had left has long evaporated. The current stalemate is owed to those who staunchly support Damascus – Iran, Iraq, China and in particular Russia.

Russia is the key denominator to finding an end to the Syrian struggle and the party that has already vetoed three UN Security Council resolutions.

The West, having recognised the newly formed Syrian National Coalition as the legitimate representatives of the Syrian people, remain wary of direct military intervention, the setup of a humanitarian corridor or even the arming of the rebels.

The current vicious cycle in Syria is not about to break. There is no way back for Assad now. Syria will never be the same again and outgunned rebels will eventually topple Assad one way or another. The end game is clear, the only thing not clear is when and how many thousands more lives will be sacrificed and how much more suffering the population will endure in the process.

Positive signs

At the recent Munich Security Conference, US Vice-President Joe Biden reiterated that Assad “is no longer fit to lead the Syrian people and he must go.” The gulf between US and Russia is one of the reasons for the protracted nature of the struggle.

Russia has been insistent that a transitional plan or negotiations should not have the removal of Assad as a prerequisite. This negates the whole purpose and motive of the Syrian opposition. How Russia can continue to believe that Assad can be part of any future democratic framework or Syrian transition smacks of delusion.

In a symbolic step for the first time, Sergei Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, held talks with leader of the Syrian National Coalition, Sheikh Ahmed Moaz Al-Khatib. Al-Khatib’s remarks that he is prepared for dialogue with the Damascus regime, created furry among the Syrian opposition. Khatib later back-pedaled and insisted any talks would merely be on the proviso of a peaceful exit of Assad’s regime.

Either way, there is no doubt that the key to the toppling of Assad lies in building positive ties between Russia and the Syrian National Coalition.

As the Syrian conflict rages on, even Russian ranks are increasingly divided, with a stark reality that Moscow does not want to risk burning bridges with a future Syria, in spite of its rhetoric. Just recently, Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev hit out at Assad’s lack of reach-out to the opposition and deemed his chances of staying in power as “shrinking day by day”.

A new Syria in a new Middle East

With the Syrian Kurds finally free from the chains of dictatorship and enjoying symbolic autonomy that they are unlikely to relinquish after decades of suffering, Alawites likely to regroup in their strongholds and Sunnis ascending to power, the new fragmented Syria will be a far cry from that of yesteryears.

With the new Syria and the Arab Spring, strategic and sectarian alliances of the Middle East are undertaking a drastic shift. Syrian Kurds will move closer to the Kurdistan Region, Turkey’s Kurdish policy both internally and externally will need a major rethink with the reality of Kurdish autonomy on its southern border, Sunnis in Iraq will naturally move closer to the new Damascus regime just as Baghdad will move increasingly closer to Tehran.

Then there are the ramifications for the Palestinians, Hezbollah and Israel. The shifts in the Middle East are unavoidable. The Western powers and regional forces most move quickly, to harness such inevitabilities in the most constructive way, or risk more turmoil and destruction in a future Syria and the new Middle East.

A continual policy of sticking to the side-lines in the current conflict will greatly encourage extremists in the Syrian struggle and risk the possibilities of war within a war, as dangerously witnessed with al-Qaeda backed elements fighting Kurdish forces in Kurdish populated areas, seemingly on a drive to escalate the Syrian war and pour fuel on Arab, Kurdish hostilities.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources:  Various Misc.

Reality versus ideology – approaching the Kurdish question

Leave a reply

The great shifts in the political and strategic landscape of the Middle East was merely accelerated by the Arab Spring, it had begun long before that. The much repressed Kurds who long lived in the shadows of other nations were at the forefront of this new Middle East.

The Kurdish renaissance has begun and while the many historic wrongs against the Kurds cannot be merely rewritten overnight, the Kurds are escaping from the chains of misfortune and are no longer the inferior components of the policies of states they were forcibly subjected to.

With near independence, a booming economy and new strategic and political clout, the Kurdistan Region has grown from strength to strength. With the Arabian earthquake in Syrian, Kurds have broken from decades of shackles with new autonomy. While, expectations of Kurds in Turkey are growing all the time.

Due to nationalist ideologies of respective countries, the Kurds were denied basic rights or even outright existence. The policy of nationalist idealism was an ignorant and elitist approach that such states could adopt due the political climates of yesteryears and the imperial and colonial mentality that plagued the Middle East.

No matter how entrenched your nationalistic ideology, how strong your nationalist propaganda or how wide your assimilation policies may stretch, all that they merely do is mask reality. The reality is that Kurds are a historic nation with an existence that stretches back thousands of years; they are the fourth largest nationality in the Middle East and the largest ethnicity in the world without a state. The crimes committed against them and their misfortunes since been cruelly carved in pieces, warrants volumes rather than a single article.

However, the point is that after policies of repression and decades of denial, this does not mean that the Kurds should suffice on scraps that governments deem suitable to provide and forgo human rights such as self-determination enshrined in UN charters.

The same dilemma of reality versus ideology now threatens to hit Turkey hard. Turkey after years of tough rhetoric and threats finally realised that the Kurdistan Region or the de-facto Kurdish state was not going to go away. It eventually came to terms with  accepting and benefiting from this reality, rather than wasting valuable energy denying it based on historical fears and outdated nationalist ethos.

Turkey and the Kurdistan Region are now natural allies and have a mutual benefit that is growing at a rapid rate. Turkey needs a stable, secular, prosperous and friendly Kurdistan in the turbulent sectarian shifting of the Middle East and Kurdistan Region relies on Turkey for its economic growth, strategic influence and the path to Europe that it provides.

Turkey has now got a unique opportunity to strike long-term peace with the PKK and mend the broken bridges with its Kurdish community. Neither of these tasks is impossible but it needs new endeavour, trust, practical measures and acceptance of inevitabilities.

These inevitabilities entail that the Kurdish question or the PKK dilemma will not go away, but on the contrary as the Kurdish standing increases in the Middle East, so will the power and prominence of Turkey’s Kurds.

Real peace will not be achieved if Turkey believes that is sufficient to simply give Kurds rights that they should not have been deprived of in the first place. Kurds are now looking beyond basic rights and towards real concessions from the Turkish government.

A rewriting of the constitution is a must. The Kurdish status as the second ethnicity in Turkey and their respective rights must be enshrined in law. A prosperous partnership, increased employment and rebuilding projects in the south east will bring the Kurds closer not further from Ankara.

If the Kurdish question can be truly resolved, then this naturally opens new doors for Turkeys EU aspirations. Turkish Kurds can enjoy EU benefits, as well as the Kurdistan Region knowing that it will have the EU on its door step.

The Kurdish question and the PKK question are one and the same. Provide greater rights to Kurds, implement new economic motions in the Kurdish regions and open new doors for the Kurds and support for the PKK will dwindle. The PKK have been the champions of Kurdish rights and their flag bearers, but careful and sincere state overreaches can slowly alienate the PKK.

Kurds are also tired and fed up of fighting, destruction of their areas and the vicious cycle of been stuck between a repressive state and rebel violence.

Overreaches start from above and the latest peace initiative has new momentum and real promise. In this regard, appointments such as Muammer Güler as interior minister, with roots in the Kurdish areas, replacing the unpopular and hawkish Idris Naim Sahin, is just the right tonic.

Turkey’s parliament also passed a symbolic law on Thursday which gave right to Kurds to use their own language in court.

The “Democratic Openings” of previous years stalled as Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan become invariably stuck between the past and the future, becoming pinned down by the need to appease nationalist voters and media pressure.

A similar inconsistent or stop-start approach will simply delay the process by a few more years, but Kurds and Turks have no choice but to return to the negotiating table. As the slaying of Sakine Cansiz and other female PKK members showed, there are plenty of sides that seek to destroy peace.

It’s time for Turkey to brave in its actions and break the status quo for the benefit of a new Turkey based on true brotherhood.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources:  Various Misc.

In light of tragic murders, PKK and Turkish state must hold firm to unique peace passage

Leave a reply

In the same vain as previous hopes and initiatives to end Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) hostilities and resolve Turkey’s age old Kurdish dilemma, any step forward has often been met with two steps back. The Turkish failure to acknowledge its Kurdish reality and its instance on a military solution has left this dilemma in somewhat of a vicious cycle. An insurgency nearing almost 3 decades, deaths of over 40,000, the destruction of villages, not to mention the billions of dollars of military expenditure and the considerable polarisation of Kurds and Turks, tells its own story.

Previous attempts at achieving elusive peace with the PKK were thwarted by Turkish nationalists unmoving on Kemalist ideology and out-dated policies, and Kurdish rebels unwilling to back down on what they saw as minimal demands.

It is no surprise that with the prospect of peace growing between the Turkish government and the PKK and the announcement in the Turkish media of an agreed roadmap between imprisoned PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan and the Turkish interlocutors, a great cloud was quickly placed on the talks by the tragic assassination of Sakine Cansız in Paris, one of the founding members of the PKK, along with two colleagues, Fidan Doğan and Leyla Söylemez.

Any recent air of optimism or aura of hope was quickly overshadowed by the cold-hearted murders as sentiments soon turned to anger, mourning and outrage.

While the question of the culpable and the motives behind the killings naturally dominate the topic, the timing of the incidents speaks volumes.  Whether instigated within the PKK or by Turkish nationalist wings, the end goal is the same, to disrupt and derail the peace process.

Unsuccessful Oslo based talks between the Turkish Intelligence Services (MIT) and the PKK were shrouded with an element of secrecy, but the fact that the latest initiative to break the deadly stalemate was openly discussed and acknowledged by Turkish officials, offered fresh hope and signalled that Turkey was willing to present true overtures and solutions this time and not just rhetoric.

Behind the scenes, Turkey will have always known that cutting the branches of the Kurdish struggle would have been fruitless without cutting the root. However, Turkey remained obstinate on its out-dated ideologies and could not differentiate the Kurdish problem from what it deemed as a terrorist problem.

The armed struggle may have been a tool that has allowed the Kurds a voice at the negotiation table, but it has failed to adapt to geopolitical realities. In the midst of the Arab Spring, grassroots of democracy in the Middle East and a rapidly changing national and strategic outlook for the Kurds, the climate has drastically shifted.

Kurds have new tools and new ways to promote their cause and Turkey can fail to listen at its peril. The Iraqi Kurds, now key strategic political and economic partners of Turkey, have newfound prominence and practical independence while the Syrian Kurds are afforded opportunities that were unthinkable merely a few years ago.

The admission by French President Francois Hollande that he had regular contact with one of the slain, much to the dismay of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, resonates loudly. The Turkish Kurds whether officially or not, enjoy relatively good support from the European communities. The PKK may be on the EU blacklist, but no doubt European politicians in some form or another have symphasised with their cause, if not their tactics. Simply put, the Kurds have more than a strong diplomatic platform now to lay down their arms and end unnecessary violence.

Peace, a resolution to the Kurdish question and a true reconciliation between Kurds and Turks can only serve both nations and the greater good of Turkey.

The Kurds have come a long way and must seize the initiative as much as Turkey must match intent with practical deeds and real compromise. Half-hearted measures suit no side, and any delay to the peace process will merely mean more years of fighting and an eventual return to the negotiation table.

Whether today or tomorrow, the Kurds and Turks have no choice but to sit down and enter dialogue. Anything else simply delays the inevitable.

The tragic death of Sakine Cansız and others need urgent answers; none more so than from the French government on whose soil the crimes were committed. But both the PKK and Turkish government must ensure the voices of moderation prevail.

It is very easy to swing back to the realms of violence and shy away from peace at this sensitive conjecture but this is exactly what the perpetrators of the murders want. The peace process is not at the stage of fully-fledged ceasefire negotiations and can easily evaporate before any real substance is built.

Cansiz did not have an active role in the PKK command, although she continuously supported the rebel cause. He death was more symbolic as a female revolutionary, an icon of resistance and determination and of course as a founding member. It was designed to stir emotion more than deprive the PKK of a leader or handicap the movement.

Elements within both the PKK and Turkish state have reasons to derail the peace process. Ocalan is without a doubt the most influential figurehead of the PKK, but he has not been in active command for almost 14 years. Like any rebel movement, the PKK has its divergent branches and differing ideological and political stances, and Ocalan will not necessarily hold sway over all components.

After nearly 30 years of fighting and countless sacrifices, elements within the PKK will be weary of “selling out” to the arch enemy. For every willing negotiator and moderate voice in the PKK, there are those that prefer to fight to their last breath.

As for Turkish nationalists, the PKK has been a card that they can use to justify the outdated policies of the state, repression of the Kurds and to label the Kurds as the “bad guys”. The PKK has been a means by which Turkish military hawks can justify billions of dollars of expenditure and keep intact Kemalist foundations.

Certain elements within both the PKK and Turkish state have more to lose in peace than in war.

Even Iran and Syria, potential suspects that should not be discounted from the murders, have plenty to lose with peace between PKK and Turkish state. The PKK has been like a wildcard used by various regional actors. The best example is how the PKK struggle was significantly revived as both Damascus and Tehran were keen to punish the influential support of Ankara in the Syrian uprising.

The PKK even has political roots in Syria via the PYD, which has alarmed Turkey, as Syrian Kurds rise to prominence has hit the international spotlight. Peace with the PKK not only gives Turkey reassurances from within but also outside its borders. For the PKK, peace may safeguard and even enhance political gains of their brethren in Syria.

It is of extreme importance that as well as the French government, the Turkish government show their willingness to carry out a thorough and transparent investigation into the killings. The Turkish government must show its hands are clean before it resumes its position at the negotiating table.

The PKK must refrain from accusations and any harming of the peace process while the picture around the murders become clearer and should conduct its own investigations.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources:  Various Misc.

As the United States turns its back on Iraq and ‘Bush’s legacy’, Kurds and democracy left to suffer

Leave a reply

The United States and their allies took a bold step in 2003 amidst strong international opposition to free a country from decades of tyranny and a dictator that was the ultimate weapon of mass destruction, to build the foundations of a new Iraq that most Iraqis never thought they would see.

The legacy of former US President George W. Bush on Iraq is in stark contrast to that of Barrack Obama. For all his critics, Bush was highly determined to “last the course” in Iraq and oversaw an Iraq that had a series of historic elections, a new constitution and a new dawn of liberation that could not have been better symbolised than in veteran Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani’s appointment as Saddam Hussein’s successor.

Talabani’s instalment as president was poetic justice as it represented the ironic twist of the oppressed replacing the oppressor, Kurds who were long denied equal rights were now at the forefront of the new Iraq. The US adventure in Iraq was often plagued for everything it didn’t fulfil, not for all the historic opportunities that it unravelled.

The US invasion of Iraq had many success stories for Washington, non-more illustrious than the Kurdistan Region. From impoverishment, oppression and suffering, the Kurds have built a secular democracy with increasing economic and strategic clout in Iraq that most US politicians in 2003 dreamed about.

When Iraq’s was descending into all out civil war, Bush took the bold move to call upon thousands more troops, when the budget was blown billions more dollars were approved and when Iraq was falling apart, the determination of the US only grew further. Iraq was simply at the centre of US foreign policy and a project that it could ill-afford to abandon. US intervention on many occasions allowed Iraqi politicians to reach compromise and democratic progress to continue, whenever the Kurds, Sunnis or Shiites were on the negotiating table, the fourth would be a keen and willing US.

The Iraqi baton was passed to Barrack Obama in 2009, and the contrast in approach could not be greater. Iraq is hardly in the media, in the US public eye or a priority of Obama as Washington has distanced itself from the role of the foster parents of the new Iraq.

Of course, it was somewhat inevitable as Obama’s election campaign was always centred on Iraqi withdrawal and anti-meddling in Iraqi affairs and due to changes in the global political climate. It has tried to play a supportive and neutral role in Iraq, whilst stating its support for a plural and democratic Iraqi that adheres to its constitution.

It is no coincidence that shortly after US withdrawal in Iraq, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki’s stance toughened with a consolidation of power, the fallout over Sunni Vice President  Tariq al-Hashemi began, already fragile political agreements weakened and relations between the Kurdistan Region and Baghdad plummeted.

A little over a year after US forces departed, the immense sacrifices and efforts of the US are in great danger of been wasted. The delicate and often tenuous balance that the US managed to achieve over the years is fast evaporating. Bush warned in one of his last speeches that the Iraq “war was not over”.

In a recent interview with Time magazine, Kurdistan Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani, emphasising the moral responsibility of the US, underlined Kurdish disappointment on the current US position “…America came to this country, spent huge amounts of money and have sacrificed lives. But they handed over the keys to others…”

Whether the current administration likes it or not, they have a level of responsibility to the Kurds and the new Iraq they helped to create.

Washington cannot simply send thousands of troops like before or throw billions more dollars that it doesn’t have, but it cannot be a bystander in Iraq either. A Baghdad that is increasingly distancing itself from US influence has a man at the helm that holds the position of acting interior minister, acting defense minister and acting national security minister as well as the role of Prime Minister.

The US always referred to potential conflict between the Kurds and Arabs as the greatest danger in Iraq. The very reason that tense stand-offs were averted in the past was due to US intervention and the advent of join patrols in disputed territories.

Now that very danger is perilously close to reality, with both Kurdish and Iraqi troops amassed in a stiff showdown that not only threatens to put Iraq back to square, but whose ramifications will serve to shake an already edgy Middle East.

The Obama administration has repeated its support for an Iraq that abides by the Iraqi constitution many times. However, what happens when the same constitution is violated or constitutional principles such as article 140, hydrocarbon law or power sharing are neglected?

It is not to say that the US has a magic wand, but its influence could and should still go a long way in Iraq. The US cannot wash a hand that was deeply tainted in the Iraqi struggle for so long.

The oil dispute typifies the new US stance of sitting on the wall. While the rest of Iraq has lingered behind, Kurdistan is developing and raring to go. Yet the US has repeatedly warned Turkish companies against direct deals with the Kurds claiming it threatens the “integrity of Iraq”. It is Baghdad’s lack of commitment to the constitution and not the Kurds who threaten the integrity of Iraq.

Ironically, the biggest coup for Kurds was to get US oil giant Exxon-Mobil onboard and who are ready to drill in highly-contested areas in 2013, amidst a backdrop of familiar warning by Baghdad.

The Kurds remain reliant on Baghdad for exportation of oil and oil revenues and this has been somewhat of a stop-start tap in recent years and has become the source of Iraq’s carrot and stick approach against the Kurds.

The Kurds are by far the biggest pro-American group in Iraq and their flourishing economy, secularist nature and pro-western ideals is exactly what the US should have embraced. Yet Kurds feel let down, dejected and to a large extent weary of what the US will do if Iraqi forces turn their guns and arsenal on the Kurds once more.

Not only has the US supplied Baghdad with F16’s, modern tanks and weaponry, the Kurds fear a passive US stance should Kurdistan come under attack once more.

The increasing self-sufficiency drive of the Kurds, with an independent oil infrastructure at its heart, is the key to its long-term survival and prosperity. It is no wonder that surrounded by hostile forces and with a distant Washington administration in the background that they have increasingly needed to rely and capitalise on growing ties with Turkey. As Kurdistan Prime Minister emphasised in the same interview “we have a door of hope, which is Turkey. And if that door, that hope is closed, it will be impossible for us to surrender to Baghdad. We will do something that will put in danger the interests of all those concerned.”

The US needs no reminding that the Kurds helped keep Iraq together at key times when security situation descended into chaos. The Kurds were often the factor for compromise on the negotiating table, supplied thousands of troops to protect southern areas and adopted a patient game while Iraq stabilised.

The Kurds cannot simply wait for Iraq to determine when it will implement a democratic constitution, oil laws and power sharing agreements.

The US is against Kurdish independence yet it also acknowledges the importance of a plural Iraq that abides by its constitution. Kurds cannot remain stuck in this paradox indefinitely. Either it is independence or full implementation of the constitution. Barzani reiterated this position in recent warnings, “…there is no doubt if and when we lose hope that the constitution is not adhered to, certainly there are other options.”

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources:  Various Misc.