Category Archives: Kurdish Globe

Kurdistan manoeuvres to become a major feeder to Europe

Leave a reply

Commencement of oil exports and discussion on revising Nabucco gas pipeline using Kurdistan supplies marks a new milestone in the Kurdish experience. Kurdish joy at such developments is easy to see, as they strive to become a strategic “bread-basket” of Europe, Turkey and also Iraq. However, the “battle” is not quite won.  Key decision remain to be made by regional and European powers that will redefine the shape and existence of the Kurdistan Region

If the “new” Iraq is to be taking seriously, then the first fundamental step is to abide by the core principles that underline the new Iraq. Iraq is a democratic country, with an elected constitution, is based on the equal status and rights of all its ethnicities, enforced by the principles of federalism they have chosen to adopt.

However, in Iraq progress has been painfully slow and negotiations have been ubiquitously tainted and protracted. Amongst the fundamental disagreements in the new Iraq, is how to share and develop its immense oil wealth.

In the absence of a national hydro-carbon law, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), has drafted its own regional oil legislation and signed a number of contracts with foreign oil companies.

Constant bickering between Baghdad, who has deemed all such contracts as “illegal” and Erbil, has served the benefit of no side. Oil has been misused for decades in Iraq, particularly by Saddam Hussein, to declare war on neighbouring countries and oppress the Kurdish population.

One can only imagine what kind of Iraq we would have today, all of Iraq for that matter, had the oil been managed affectively and used with regards to the rights and benefits of all the population.

The Kurdistan Region is awashed with invaluable oil and gas reserves, and the Kurds, particularly in light of their plight under the “old” Iraq, are owed by the new face of Baghdad, to enjoy the privileges of the divine gift of nature and utilise oil for productive benefit – to see their region prosper, expand and modernise, rather than ironically use oil from their historical lands, to bomb those very lands.

The real sticking-point is the new prominence of the Kurds, after years of serving in the back pages of the history books. The worry of Baghdad is the strengthening of the Kurdish experience and their potential new role as the “bread-basket” of Europe. With Oil exports finally approved and talk of reviving the Nabucco gas pipeline, a project backed by the European Union to counter the over dependence on Russian supplies, Kurdistan could well enter a new chapter in its history.

How will their long-time adversaries, such as Turkey and Arab nationalists, feel about a new strategic Kurdistan that can support the world rather than merely rely on world support, is open to debate. Clearly, the problem in both respects is seeing a Kurdistan that escapes under their direct sphere of influence and into the hands of other grateful recipients.

Approval of oil exports

Oil exports were finally approved from the Kurdistan Region in early May. This is a symbolic milestone in Kurdish history, but one that will ultimately benefit the whole of Iraq. Revenues from oil sales will be deposited directly into the federal government account, thus the Kurds get only a 17% benefit from this, while the rest of Iraq, who has ironically been at such loggerheads with the idea, will a receive the other much needed 83% of these revenues.

The region is onset to commence oil exports on the 1st of June with Norwegian oil company DNO, completing preparation to export an average 60,000 barrels a day from the Tawke oil field to the Turkish port of Ceyhan via a new 45km pipeline.

Oil exports in the Taq Taq field, roughly constituting 40,000 barrels per day would also begin via tankers and existing pipelines in the near future.

Oil or “black gold” as it is referred, is a bonus or gift to any country. The long-standing disputed over control of Kirkuk spanning several decades, is ultimately heated by the very simple fact that it is one of the richest parts of the world.

Baghdad’s evident reluctance in seeing Kurds control oil or Kirkuk for that matter, hinges on the fact this will facilitate a Kurdistan that is much stronger, more stable but ultimately one that has little reliance on Baghdad.

Kurdish self-sufficiency could be completed once it gains significant oil revenues that it is entailed too. Hence, this is the source of anxiety emanating from Turkey. Seeing a Kurdistan Region that is growing in stature and confidence, with European and world powers increasingly keen to benefit from its vast resource, places Turkey in a different corner.

Of course, we must not forget that the control of oil reserves has long been linked by analysis and experts as the final piece of the Kurdish jigsaw in obtaining independence if it chose that path. In simple terms, as a largely autonomous federal region or fully independent state, oil makes these dreams economically viable.

Furthermore, the Iraqi constitution has defined a new Iraq that may be against the wishes of neighbouring countries. However, such neighbours have to realign their policies and relationships in line with this reality.

The increasing warming of the Turkish government in recent times to the KRG is testimony to the realisation of this new reality, however, hard it may be to swallow.

Now European talk of using the Kurdistan Region to revive the Nabucco pipeline that flows through Erzurum in Turkey, places the Turkish government in yet another conundrum.

Reviving the Nabucco gas pipeline

Austria’s OMV and Hungary’s MOL have teamed up with Crescent Petroleum and Dana Gas companies from the United Arab Emirates to extract the gas from Khor Mor and Chamchamal fields in the Kurdistan Region.

The consortium have expressed their belief that supplies will be sufficient to initiate the long- planned Nabucco pipeline, designed to extract gas from central Asia, after meeting local needs and Turkish demand.

The key problem however, is Baghdad’s reluctance that any agreements can be signed without its approval. Kurds, in the same manner as the oil stand-offs have insisted that such agreements over gas exportation is backed by the terms in the Iraqi constitution.

Whether European countries and particularly Turkey, for which Nabucco remains an important project, presses ahead with the Kurdish project without tacit approval from Baghdad, will have great significance for the KRG and the region.

This wills legitimise the Kurdistan experience in another way – a way that is not connected to Baghdad, forming a new strategic position for the Kurdistan Region.

While Turkey remains highly-reluctant to effectively rubber stamp Kurdish “independence”, clearly the Kurdistan Region is on the road to realising its potential as a key entity and a strategic partner of the West.

This journey may have a long way to go, but in the not so distant future, the Kurds will no longer survive based on hand-outs from states, but will be making their own crucial “handouts”.

After all a pro Western, non-Arab secular democratic state that is close proximity to Europe and with immense natural resource doesn’t come along too often.

What now for Baghdad?

In spite of the agreement to authorise oil exports from the Kurdistan Region, Baghdad is mindful that this does not serve as a carte-blanche for the region. Baghdad is still very much against the principle of Kurdish “unilateralism” and is still keen on forging a stronger centre at the expense of federalism.

However, a number of factors may sway opinion in Baghdad. Firstly, the drastic hit that the national budget has taken with the fall in oil revenues has greatly impacted the Iraqi economy and reconstruction projects that have been ear-marked. Allowing the Kurds to bridge that gap, has become more important than nationalistic quarrels.

Secondly, if neighbouring, European countries or the European Union for that matter, sides with the Kurds and accepts they are not breaking the “law” and only following a constitution which gives them their democratic rights, then to save embarrassment, Baghdad may be better to accept the new Kurdish position and affectively be seen to have made the decision to “endorse” it.

With talk that Kurdish export capacity could reach 1 million barrels of oil in just several years, this may be time for celebration for Kurds, Iraq, the region and Europe. Perhaps, all sides can win after all by working with each other than against each other.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.

A Taste of Kurdistan – a Correspondents Journey

Leave a reply

The Journey to Erbil

In preference to direct flights to Iraqi Kurdistan, I always choose the more intriguing scenic route through Turkey. However, even by previous standards, this felt like a grueling journey.

Spending time in Istanbul and the more glamorous west of Turkey and shortly descending to the more impoverished south eastern part of Turkey could not be more contrasting.

The humble road to Silopi is an intriguing journey through a revealing landscape and a story of political legacies. Part of the road, particularly near Nusaybin, runs in parallel with the Syrian border, or Syrian Kurdistan as most Kurds are quick to point out. This legacy of divided lives and lost citizenships runs almost a century old, with adjacent border lines divided almost symmetrically by barbed fences, where families were literally separated between both lands, and left with the option of been assimilated into Turkish or Syrian nationalities, or in the case of Syria not existing at all.

The bumpy route through the heartland of eastern Turkey is a revealing one. It is evidently been a disenfranchised and impoverished region as a result of decades of conflict and neglect by successive Ankara governments. The infrastructure of what is effectively one-fourth or one-fifth of Turkey, a country with EU ambitions, is lacking and tells its own story. It clearly feels like a neglected region and even more clearly demonstrates that with unemployment high, and the region very much behind, the Turkish government has an obvious starting point to entice the people into their line of thinking and at the same time discourage support for separatists.

Most Turkish Kurds that I spoke with were not advocates or great believers of separatism and were not necessarily anti-Turkey or ant-Turkish for that matter, but wanted improved living standards, jobs and full cultural recognition. The battle against the PKK, is an easy battle for Turkey to win if it chooses to do so, however the battle starts in Diyarbakir and not in the mountains.

Past elections have demonstrated that Kurds can be swayed towards Turkish parties such as the AKP, if they truly live up to their promises to promote the region and continue to introduce reforms. The GAP project and other initiates in Ankara have been much talked about, but Kurds appear still to be waiting for promises to translate into real action on the ground.

By the time I got to the Ibrahim Khalil border gate and packed with thoughts on the region, I was now absolutely tired. However, as it was now 03:30 in the morning and having just crossed into the Iraqi Kurdistan side of the border, I decided to press ahead with my journey towards Erbil. I could not help thinking that the implementation of the new border gates on the Turkish side, new outposts and a quicker checking process, was a reflection of the warming of Turkey towards the region. However, improved border gates, miles of lorries waiting to cross with all sorts of food items, electronic products and building materials, may not necessarily be such a good gauge after all, I thought to myself. Relationships still remain murky on an official level and I doubt Turkeys stance to seeing the Kurdistan flags been flown across the Habur Gate will have become any easier.

The growing commerce and the huge number of Turkish companies, prove that there is a clear benefit in good relationships to both sides. Certainly, a lot of Kurds that I spoke with on previous visits leaned heavily towards Turkey as a partner that can carry the region forward and hopefully in the near future open a front to the EU and all the privileges that this brings.

If the journey was not already bad enough, I was soon faced with a relentless sandstorm that had not only seemingly clouded the whole region but had blinded my taxi driver.

A fierce sandstorm, a tight single carriage highway, with lorry drivers seemingly on a mission to break some speed record to reach the border, was only worsened by the claim of my driver that he had not slept into two days. Great! This Left me without much hope. In all fairness, the driver did not seem fazed by the obstacles, or those self-inflicted ones for that matter. I was left wondering if it’s a Kurdish thing to live your life on the edge, with many undeterred by dangers or challenges that they face. Wearing a seat-belt appears a forbidden tradition to some youngsters though it may law, even my family finds it amusing as I buckle up when I get in the car. If you could see some of the driving, you would not blame me for holding on tight!

Arriving in Erbil

Every time I visit the region, I always keenly anticipate the improvements in the region, particularly Erbil. While not Istanbul, Erbil has fast become a city that the Kurds can be proud of. The city itself has a strong historical legacy but has never quite lived up to its ancient status. Kurds hope they can now change that.

In spite of the rapid development, it is very easy to point out deficiencies in Erbil, especially for someone who has lived for over 20 years in London and has travelled far and wide across the globe. Erbil has a long way to go, but the transformation from mass destruction and repression under dictatorship, to self-rule post-1991 is nothing short of remarkable.

Nowadays, the expectations of the population, particularly the younger generation, who have never experienced Baathist rule, are sky-high. Rebuilding and modernizing Erbil, a city whose development that was hardly going to be a pressing priority of Saddam Hussein, was almost like a standing start. Kurds needed all sorts of things from roads, hospitals and general social infrastructure.

There are many construction projects dotting the landscape, especially on the more prominent parts of Erbil. This felt like a bubbly place that has not heard about the global economic recession. The city however is still a work in progress. Kurds are eager to have a city centre built around the ancient Citadel, that they can be proud of.

Older less appealing buildings have started to be demolished around the centre, to be replaced by more attractive gardens.

The road systems have certainly improved with new by-passes and highways connecting major cities. However, this is no surprise with the immense number of cars in circulation. At the rate of new cars, road workers will need to continue widening and expanding indefinitely! With commerce thriving and development at such a rapid rate, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) must also implement a modern infrastructure that can support it.

The local population seems as keen as ever to modernize. With multiple new malls such as Rhein Mall and Nishtiman mall, fashion tastes are expanding, although admittedly well-beyond the price range of the poor. Trading is high and there are now new car outlets selling brand new vehicles.

The city is clearly booming, but that is not to say that one should divert too much attention to the better aspects. There are still scores of poor who suffer from rising prices and run-away property prices. The price of land has seen a meteoric rise in recent years as development in the region by both local and foreign investors has increased the demand for land.

The other half of the glass

With ever increasing publicity for the region and a continuous expansion of commerce, it’s hard not too focus on the positives. This is made all the more prominent since 2003, with the south of Iraq engulfed in deadly violence and instability. The Kurds have tried to showcase Kurdistan as a gateway to the rest of Iraq.

However, positives aside, Erbil is far from perfect. Prices of car and land have put enormous pressure on sections of the population and a lot Kurds still lack basic services. The sewage system in large parts of the city and the region are still basic or nonexistent. A lack of electricity supply has been a ubiquitous struggle. As noted before to support and tout such large scale development, there must also be the premise of a sufficient infrastructure to support such an ambitious strategy.

The case of electricity is a prime example. The increased supply of electricity has been greatly diluted by the much more increasing rate of demand. New buildings, malls and expanding roads and infrastructure, requires a support structure that the old system simply could never cope with.

People seem generally happy, but frustrations with public services remain. Sections of the population feel that the government needs to now deliver on certain fronts.

Whilst the people have generally kept their feet on the ground, it is easy to see how the growing money in circulation in region has greatly altered mindsets. There is a feeling that people are at times in competition with their neighbors and their relatives, for obtaining better houses, better cars etc.

While mentalities have headed towards the new era, some aspects bring natural curiosity. The “litter” culture, where people leave their rubbish after enjoying the great landscape is baffling. Why do people feel that they can dump rubbish, after having a great day out and enjoying all the pleasures that Kurdistan give?

Some streets clearly are better than others, but generally people suffer from a mentality of a lack of care. Improving your country starts at home. Why should you dump rubbish on your streets or behave in a certain way, because your neighbor chooses to do so?

Although, the attitude to the importance of heath has certainly improved, health dangers are not always respected. Smoking is rife in the region, foods can be oily, improving dietary needs is not always appreciated and generally some people still suffer from an “I live for today, tomorrow is tomorrow” mindset.

More Western mindsets should ensure that people plan their lives and think about tomorrow and the future. How can they improve their lives today and tomorrow? Without setting goals in society, progress is difficult.

Ties with the south

Kurds have enjoyed relative peace and prosperity, but with many issues such as article 140, federalism and hydrocarbon law hanging in the balance and a resurgent Baghdad government, has left the Kurds anxiously waiting for reconciliation.

Of the most important sticking point is the clash over the handling of the disputed territories, particularly oil-rich Kirkuk, which has served as a historic thorn between the Kurds and Arabs.

Kirkuk has almost become synonymous from an outside perceptive with a battle for control of oil. With the ever increasing war of words between Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government and the KRG, and a desire of Baghdad to dilute Kurdish power, there is an increasing danger of clashes between both sides, with democracy seemingly shelved on certain aspects.

Travelling towards Kirkuk was a highly intriguing journey. As we headed out of Erbil and towards the flatter plains further south, the scene of the battle between Erbil and Baghdad became obvious. This part of the country is absolutely awashed with oil. Our journey from Debiga, Sargeran, Ghala, Pirde, Makhmour and Kirkuk was fascinating, as the Arab-Kurd divide become murky the further south you went. The miles of oil pipelines connecting the Kirkuk oil fields with Ceyhan in Turkey were remarkable. Flames could be seen from furnaces and local oil fields.

Ironically, a land that seemingly quenches the thirst for fuel of the much more advanced West is hardly a sight for sore eyes. The landscape and scenery itself is fantastic but the state of the houses, roads, and general services are certainly far from fitting of what is technically one of the richest areas in the whole world.

The city of Kirkuk fits the same bill. An area that has 15% of Iraq’s oil reserves has been devoid of much development over the decades. If a small fraction of the oil that it produces had been spent on the city, it could easily rival anywhere in the Middle East by now.

Feelings towards government

Iraqi Kurdish leaders such as Massaud Barzani and Jalal Talabani have played a prominent role in Kurdish nationalism and have in turn ensured that their names are firmly entered in Kurdish folklore. With Kurds growingly expectant, it almost goes without saying that whilst most Kurds are ever grateful and appreciate that achievements from a standing start have been remarkable, there is a strong feeling amongst the Kurds that this should not be used as some kind of an indefinite fallback or excuse by the government.

There exists a strong desire amongst the Kurdish population for changes in government and eradication of corruption. Judicial system lacks from transparency and independence, and although not always specific in their criticisms, reports from human rights organizations have shown that Kurdistan has still many strides to go in terms of civil liberties, enforcing the rule of law and ensuring the rights of every citizen are upheld.

Whilst the move from fighting in the mountains to serving parliament is symbolic, the political parties must also evolve with the changing times and the challenges that this brings. The upcoming elections in Kurdistan region is set to be valuable gauge in the feeling of the people and the progress of democracy in the region.

The Iraqi Kurds have been keen to open portals to the outside world, and have actively encouraged foreign investment, the opening of new consulates and cross-cultural expansion. If the KRG is able to fulfill growing expectations and their own high-ambitions, it will need all the partners and channels to propel the region forward.

There is a strong feeling amongst the population that Turkey may yet be the best bet for the advancement of the region and the gateway to Europe.

Newroz celebrations of 21st March 2009

The start of the spring equinox is the beginning of Newroz or “new day” celebrations across Kurdistan. The celebrations were officially announced with the lighting of the Newroz torch in Erbil at 18:30 on 20th March 2009. Newroz is arguably the most important date in the Kurdish calendar, marked by ubiquitous burning flames and a mass exodus of Kurds to the beautiful and scenic countryside.

The roads on the 21st of March were jam-packed from early morning. It was the first time I had experienced such a mass exodus of a city, with every family seemingly en-route to celebrations. The Erbil to Koya highway was gridlocked, with cars packed with passengers, all sorts of food items, chairs and mattresses. Such was the traffic that the traffic police had opened the opposite lane into Erbil for travelers heading out. After all there was hardly a single car coming into the city.

From the outskirts of the city onwards, the countryside was filled with families dancing, playing music and making barbeques.

Newroz is a celebration of freedom from a tyrant that once ruled, by the courage of a blacksmith. The fires symbolize the dawn of a new era and also freedom. It is celebrated across Kurdistan as a patriotic icon and has been used often, especially in Turkey, to express national sentiments and to rebel against the government.

March has proved a mystical month for Kurds, as it was also in March 1991 when the Kurds revolting against Saddam forces and attained their current autonomy and freedom.

The “other” Erbil

The much publicized new foreign style villages, modern developments and state of the art facilities on the outskirts of the city, left a feeling that there was now almost two Erbil’s. The difference in terms of standards between parts of new and old Erbil is remarkable.

With economic prosperity, come a growing rich list and an increasing middle class. Developments and the increase of the rich are fuelled by investments from Kurds abroad and the strong desire of the KRG to promote foreign investment and the modernization of the region. There is a growing demand for luxury items such as brand new cars, electronic appliances etc.

There is an evident Turkish hand in the region, with a majority of foreign products and companies Turkish based. Such companies are playing a heavy hand in the construction of new complexes and the rebuilding of others. There are also scores of Iranian food and merchandise in the region.

While investment has grown, this has not reached the level to fulfill the regions true promise. Ultimately, the Kurds seek investment from major European and American companies.

The most prominent foreign investment, much to the dismay of Baghdad, is the signing of a number of oil exploration and development contracts with small foreign oil companies.

Contrast with the rest of Iraq

While the south has suffered evident instability and pain since 2003, ironically this has been much to the advantage of the Kurdistan Region, which has for the best part managed to keep a firm distance from the insecurity and insurgency further south.

Kurds have been quick to showcase Kurdistan region as “other Iraq” and also as a gateway to Iraq itself.

Many Arabs visit the region for vacation and some have chosen to resettle altogether. The keenness of the Arabs to visit Kurdistan and enjoy its offerings is a joy to see, and demonstrates how both sides can effectively mix and benefit from the prosperity across Iraq, if fundamental differences between both sides can be bridged (I wish it was that easy in practice to bridge such gaps).

Baghdad has become increasingly wary of Kurdish power and their perceived veto status. There is a general feeling that Kurdish gains since 2003 are as a result of overreaching, and the fact that the existing constitution has afford too much power to the Kurds.

Currently, many stipulations within the constitution itself are been challenged by a new stronger and more confident Baghdad government, headed by a resurgent al-Maliki who was clearly triumphant at the recent provincial elections.

Al-Maliki, for many Iraqi’s is the strong figure needed to head Iraq and pull the country together. Kurds find themselves in an anxious position to determine how the new Iraq will shape up. Whether al-Maliki gets his wish to dilute federalism, Kurdish power and maintain a strong central control over oil and armed forces is unclear. There is a feeling that something may have to give either way.

My own experience

As much as I can enjoy the tranquility and the privileges of living in the UK for the past 20 years, my own experiences as a child have forever ensured an acute perspective on life.

Growing up as a child in poverty and in the middle of a deadly war felt like a unique experience. A young mind experiencing death of family members and the destruction of his village is decisive. This was compounded with the belief that our father was presumed killed in combat for over 5 years and with the Baathist forces constantly on the prowl for the next hapless victim.

The demolition of our home, which left us affectively homeless, provided a much needed moment of divine intervention, as we received news from Iran that our dad had been critically wounded and was permanently disabled as a result but had miraculously survived.

This started a treacherous and highly-pulsating journey across the Iran-Iraq border, as we were smuggled across the border in the middle of a bloody war and in a journey that lasted 3 days, and the crossing of tough mountainous terrains and valleys on horseback.

As if there was any respite, we were able to see the war from another perspective. We lived in Iran for 2 years and could now boast (if that is ever a good way to put it), that we had seen the war from an Iraqi Arab, Iraqi Kurdish, Iranian and Iranian Kurdish perspective!

Once in the UK, it was the start of fresh challenges, acclimatization and the start of education. Such a difference in environment, way of life and culture was mind-boggling. However, in the serenity and tolerance of the West, I was able to follow-up an immense intrigue for history books and delve into politics much deeper.

My intrigue was understandable. How could a fellow human ever inflict such barbaric acts on each other? What kind of a world did we have if thousands could savagely perish only because of their identity? What had become a shape of the world, if cries and pleas by fellow humans under the subject of torture and repression could be ignored by the self-appointed leaders of the modern age?

My own experience shaped my mindset in the most diplomatic way possible – by using productive energy and seeking to improve unity, justice and harmony in a seemingly disparate age.

However, going through Iraq, I can’t help thinking that the West does not truly understand passion or fanaticism. Humans do not always react in the same logical way. Why does man feel so strongly about a case that he is willing to blow himself up? What drives a man to seek revenge by slaying the life of another?

Problems and passions in this region are delicately intertwined and deep-rooted, some conflict running through hundreds of years. Certainly, such levels of animosity and tension are not to so easy to bridge.

I tried to use my experience and the immense suffering of family as a deep perceptive and as a spring-board to improve cross-cultural understanding, tolerance and knowledge.

I believe reconciliation is always achievable and harmony in the Middle East does not necessarily need to be a pipe dream, if there is a true desire for such a concept.

As for Iraq, it remains to be seen if the Kurds and Arabs will live in long-term unison. Past animosities and misfortunes cannot be forgotten in a hurry. That’s just the way the cookie crumbles in the Middle East.

Regardless of Western concepts and ideals such as democracy, if the principles are not affectively embraced, then the application of square pegs to a round hole is fruitless.

I anxiously await my next visit the Middle East and Iraq.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

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

Iranian nuclear capability, the practice of a natural right or an evident danger to world peace?

Leave a reply

Iranian nuclear programme firmly under the international spotlight as voices of discontent grow in Israel

The US is keen to revitalize foreign relation ties in the Middle East. One of the historical key to achieving this is finding an elusive long-term solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However a growingly influential Iran, who the US have insisted that they face “no greater challenge” than its emerging nuclear capabilities, has only served to complicate the interconnected web that is the Middle East. How the US deals with a defiant hard-line regime, who has stated they are only enjoying their natural rights to nuclear development, may go a long way to determining resolutions elsewhere in the Middle East.

Throughout history, the Middle East has proved a highly contentious stage for global instability and a crucial placard of colonial powers. However, although the initiatives of Western powers in recent years in addressing some of the shortfalls and historical trouble spots in the region have been bold, the Middle East continues to be platform for anxiety and future wars.

A vital icon of the modern Middle Eastern landscape is Israel, whose controversial creation in 1948 added more to fuel to the regional fire. In recent years, a growingly prominent and confident Iranian regime with its own fair share of infamy has come to the fore as a key regional power and as a threat to the delicate balance.

Iran has been pretty much in diplomatic isolation since the Islamist revolution of 1979 dramatically propelled Ayatollah Khomeini to power. The perception of Iran as a threat is nothing new, however the original threat of Shiite Islamist revolutionaries threatening the whole framework of the predominantly Sunni Arab region, took on significant meaning in recent years, with its much debated nuclear program coming to the international fore.

The current nuclear crisis dates back to 2003, when the IAEA reported that Iran had hidden a uranium enrichment programme for 18 years. Opposition to such an ideal grew fiercer with inception of a new hard-line regime in Tehran from 2005.

Nuclear technology is hardly a new concept, and many regimes posses such a capability, none more so than Israel itself, who remains the sole possessor of nukes in the Middle East. However, the danger in the case of Iran is clear, a nuclear Islamist regime that is alleged to support a number of radical groups in the region and accused of been a “supporter of terrorism” rings obvious sirens.

Stand-off with Israel

Iranian antagonism towards the Jewish state is not new, however with accession of ultra conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power in 2005, his brazen remarks towards the very existence of Israel as a country has ruffled many a feather in the international arena.

At a recent U.N conference on racism in Geneva, Ahmadinejad’s denunciation of the “totally racist government” of Israel founded on the “pretext of Jewish suffering” drew further condemnation and protests.

The Iranian nuclear programme has attracted growing attention in the international sphere. At the forefront of those opposed to any notion of a nuclear Iran is Israel. Whilst the Iranians have continuously insisted that their programme is strictly for peaceful purposes and based on their rightful civilian energy needs only, the mere idea that the same uranium enrichment process used for nuclear fuel can also be potentially utilized as a nuclear warhead, has sent the shivers down the region, particularly Israel.

For Israelis, nuclear technology for a country that has already pledged to “wipe them off the map” is a chilling notion, however theoretical such rhetoric in essence may be. Furthermore, a growingly influential Iran, in spite of the relative isolation that they still face, has a hand in many a Middle Eastern pie, especially the pies of most concern to Israel.

Iran has long been accused as major sponsors to Shiite Islamist Hezbollah stationed in South Lebanon, to Israel’s north. Hezbollah itself has become increasingly bold and determined in recent years, with increasingly capable technological arsenal said to be supplied by Iran, culminating in the deadly conflict with Israeli forces in 2006.

To the West of Israel in the Gaza Strip, Iran is also been accused of been major backers to Hamas, who only a few months ago were engaged in their own bloody confrontations with Israeli forces in the Gaza strip.

In 1981, a growingly powerful Baathist nationalist regime in Iraq with developing nuclear capabilities prompted Israel to undertake preemptive air strikes on its nuclear facilities. Now the growing question is whether an ever-weary Israeli government, could or for that matter should, deliver another preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities and “neutralize” the source, as the new Israeli governments seems to have openly hinted.

With the accession of US president Barack Obama to power, it was hoped that the frequently stalled peace process between Israel and the Palestinians could receive a much-needed jumpstart.

However, growing mutterings from the new Israeli government headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has insisted that the Iranian nuclear issue must be dealt in tandem as an interconnected issue, has threatened the peace process. The general consensus in Israel is that it would be impossible to resolve any problem in the region, without finding a resolution to the Iranian nuclear headache in parallel.

However, for Iran where defiance in spite of broad international objections, a number of UN sanctions and growing threats against the regime, has become a symbol of nationalism, giving up its nuclear programme which it sees as a natural right in the face of pressure from their adversaries is most unlikely.

It remains to be seen where this leaves the standoff, especially with many Western powers keen on a “grand bargain” with Iran over it nuclear programme.

Has diplomacy reached an end?

While the former US administration under George W. Bush continuously emphasized that “all options were on the table” regarding Iran, at least for now, military strikes appear a less viable solution that could conversely further stoke Iranian sentiments and also undermine regional support.

The new Obama administration emphasized that diplomacy was possible with Iran if it could “unclench its fist”. However, such unclenching of the fist would almost certainly involve concessions that are unlikely to be stomached by Iran, such as the suspension of their much heralded uranium enrichment programme which would hurt national pride.

While Israel has played down talks of imminent strikes, rumors of grand military drills and alleged Israeli capability to undertake multiple strikes within days of been given the go ahead, clearly signals that all options remain on the table regarding dealing with Iran.

While the diplomatic channels may not have been exhausted, with Iran signaling its openness to negotiate with the US on its nuclear programme, something will clearly have to give sooner rather than later. Though the Obama administration have sounded many positive overtures in luring the Iranian regime, it has been equally keen to note that it is also ready to respond to the issue harshly by acting as a catalyst for major economic sanctions, or possibly worse, military strikes.

A persistent thorn in the US side

Nuclear issues aside, the real problem is the Islamist regime in Iran where US-Iranian ties have never recovered since the US embassy hostage crisis which propelled relations to the current lows and led to the severance of diplomatic ties.

After much sacrifice in Iraq, the US slowly and painfully realized that the intertwined web that is the Middle East needed to be approached in a much more holistic manner.

The last several years in the Middle East, particularly the case of Iraq has highlighted that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts in resolving issues. As such, the US acknowledges that however controversial the Tehran regime may be deemed, they clearly need Iranian support if they are to achieve those goals.

As part of Obama’s strategy of reinvigorating tarnished US foreign policy in the region and in its reach out to the greater Muslim world, it has deployed a more cautious card in dealing with Iran. Whilst Israelis have linked the peace process with the Palestinians to resolving the Iranian nuclear standoff, the US have emphasized that to generate the needed political support, both issues must go hand-in-hand.

Issues such as the Israel-Palestinian peace process and Iraq can not be resolved without resolving associated interdependent components. Since Bush announced Iran as part of the “axis of evil” in 2002, it was clear that outright regime change in Iran remained the ultimate goal of Washington. Nuclear conspiracies that surfaced in 2003 only increased such desire.

Iranian have long held a historic belief that they have a rightful place as a key power in the region. Their distinct non-Arab identity is only compounded with the fact that they are Shiite Islamists, much to the contrast of the Arab Sunni dominated, and largely more pro-Western countries in the region.

Iran has remained regionally isolated since 1979 and many neighboring Muslim countries and not just Israel remain highly suspicious and anxious towards their eastern neighbors.

Ironically, Iran has at times reveled in its isolationism which has served well to stoke national sentiments and also increase the foothold of Islamist theocracy. While the clerics may halt their programme, it’s very unlikely that the US would halt its programme for regime change.

Iran en-route as a nuclear superpower?

While much of the Iranian threat lingers on would be nuclear scenarios in the future, Iran has clearly made huge strides towards its goal of becoming a nuclear superpower.

While for a time Iran briefly stopped its uranium enrichment programme in 2006, the mere capability of enriching uranium was greatly superseded with claims in 2007 that they had successfully enriched uranium to an industrial level.

Throughout the current standoff over it nuclear ambitions, Iran has continuously emphasized that its enrichment programs is only based on the “peaceful application of nuclear technology”.

Iranian persistence in following its nuclear goals has been met with frequent condemnation and intermittent economic sanctions. In July 31st 2006, resolution 1696 was passed by the United Nations Security Council, demanding that Iran stops its enrichment programme. Upon non compliance of this resolution, resolution 1737 was issued in December 26th 2006, which imposed a series of sanctions designed to prevent the transfer of nuclear and ballistic missile technologies. Sanctions were widened further in March 2007, when a growingly determined Iran continued to press ahead with its plans. Resolution 1803, a further UN Security Council Resolution in March 2008, was designed to extend sanctions to cover a number of additional areas do deter and punish Iranian non-compliance.

Iranian resistance

Iranian persistence not to succumb to what it sees as “bullying” tactics to end its nuclear programme is driven by international protocols that act as a guideline to nuclear development by any prospective government who are signatories to such pacts.

Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treat (NPT), which Iran is a party to, a country has the right to enrich uranium to fuel civilian power stations. The process to enrich uranium for civilian purposes is similar to that needed to arm nuclear warheads. However, the concentration required for a conventional weapon is much higher. Therefore NPT is designed to safeguard countries from producing more uranium than their civil needs dictate.

As an assurance to preserve the principles of the protocol, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) carries out inspections, where Iran is party to such inspections.

Put simply, Iran does have the right in principle to pursue uranium enrichment, which has only raised tensions in Iran that the series of UN sanctions and the mass objections against its programme are simply driven by political agendas.

As the nuclear battle has become a key cornerstone of the political landscape in the region and beyond, the idea of the Iranian regime succumbing to international pressure, and breaking its hard fought strides towards its current status is unlikely. Moreover, Israel, guarded by successive US administrations is controversially not a signatory to the NPT and thus is immune from scrutiny.

Orders from the UN council, however, supersede other rights and are fueled somewhat by the fact that Iran hid an enrichment programme for 18 years. The plea to stop uranium enrichment is based on the lack of international confidence on Iran’s intentions. Iran is unlikely to be allowed to diplomatically pursue its nuclear programme until the West is confident in the motives and shape of such a programme. Ironically, such confidence will not be reached until Iranian regime change is achieved.

The vicious stand-off in the nuclear affair is obvious. Europeans in particular have called for a “grand bargain” with Iran. However, Iran has been cool toward any notion that firstly takes away its inalienable rights.

Though the IAEA has highlighted Iranian non-compliances and has stated that Iran has accumulated more low-enriched uranium than first thought, this is not “enriched” to the levels needed to make a nuclear device and has also indicated that it has found no evidence that it has diverted such materials for the pursuance of a nuclear weapon.

Can Iran be appeased?

Recent European incentives have been based on the premise of a suspension to uranium enrichment. Strictly speaking, Iran can build civilian nuclear energy without enriching its own uranium and could import the civilian levels needed under inspection. Under the plan, Iranian right to peaceful enrichment of uranium would be recognized and Iran would receive help with the building of nuclear power stations, as well as receiving trade concessions.

Iran’s response has been simple, it would contest any offer other than any that firstly demanded the suspension of its enrichment programme.

As IAEA inspections and recently National Intelligence Estimate have played down the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons capability in the short-term, the current nuclear stand-off for the time been is purely political with both sides of the debate unlikely to back down.

Although Israel is not part of the NPT and thus is not subject to inspection or has to make official declarations on its nuclear capability, it is widely acknowledged to have a large stockpile of nuclear weapons. Close scrutiny of Israeli nuclear programmes have been closely guarded by successive US administration, thus affording a level of immunity that has obviously stirred sentiments in Tehran.

As far as Iran is concerned and has proudly proclaimed in public, it has already joined the nuclear elite. Perhaps it is not quite there in terms of possessing nuclear weapons, but it has undoubtedly broken the greatest challenges associated with the process to do so. Nuclear technology is a political message and a symbol of dominance and power, Iranians need nuclear capability to be recognized and respected as a regional super power.

Critics of the NPT have pointed to breaks in parts of the treaty by nuclear powers and that they have not truly moved towards nuclear disarmament that the treaty intends.

The practice of double standards?

Somewhat ironically, the idea of expansion of nuclear capability in the Middle East is not new. Egypt has announced plans to build a number of nuclear power stations to generate electricity. Egyptian plans have received backing from the US, who has stated that there is no comparison to the controversial nuclear projects of Tehran.

Saudi Arabia, even with the largest oil reserves in the world, is developing a civilian nuclear power supply, seemingly in response to its Iranian neighbors. States part of the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) have also signaled their desire to develop joint nuclear technology. Jordan has also signaled its desire to build its first nuclear power plant.

Clearly, with the nuclear capability of Israel and Western-allies been allowed to develop nuclear technology, Iranian gripe is easy to see.

Even more ironic perhaps is the frequent notion that Iranian nuclear ambition is a new phenomenon. In fact, the birth of its nuclear programme can be traced back to the onset of the rule of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi after 1953. A predominantly pro-Western state before 1979, much of the West scrambled to do business with Iran in that time including in the sphere of nuclear technology.

The Bushehr power plant, although never complete after 1979, was built under European stewardship. The Bushehr reactor was only largely destroyed between 1984 and 1987 by a number of Iraqi air strikes.

This shows that the nuclear crisis is evidently linked to politics or more specifically the regime in question, thus the argument of double standards is obvious. However, for the US which has already suffered a great Iraqi nightmare no thanks to the help of the Iranian government, the idea of a controversial power who makes frequent brazen remarks on the international stage, and supports the likes of radicals such as Hamas and Hezbollah with such technology, the warnings bells can be heard from many a mile away.

By the end of 2009, Iranians hope to have the Bushehr nuclear power plant, built with the help of the Russian in spite of strong US objections, in full swing. This is in addition to two nuclear sites in Natanz and Arak

Iranian military arsenal

Iran clearly has a thirst for power and will continue to pursue advances to its military and technological arsenal. While Iranians in theory may be appeased to stop nuclear ambitions, the threat of Iran as a military force will continue.

Iran ballistic technology is increasingly reaching greater distances to the worry of Israel, while earlier this year to coincide with the symbolic importance of the 30th anniversary of the Islamist revolution, it stroke another public victory with the successful launch of an Iranian satellite by its own rocket. This only increased Western apprehension that the ground-breaking missile technology could be used in tandem with the delivery of nuclear warheads.

If the US and its allies are intent on resolving the most pertinent Middle Eastern issues, then they must show that they are ready to deploy a level of dialogue and diplomacy to find a long-term solution to such issues.

Such long-term solutions will not be easy when the interconnected components are so delicately placed. Peace between the Palestinians and Israel has been talked about for so long, yet has frequently stalled for decades. Inflicting greater changes in the Middle East and imposing your values and ideals will not be easy without one side getting hurt.

If nuclear proliferation is currently determined on the pro-Western views of a country, what happens when that same country is taken over by extremists? Or conversely, will Iran be allowed to develop nuclear capabilities if the upcoming presidential elections result in a new reformist and moderate government?

Furthermore, if US is serious about dealing minimizing nuclear weapons in general, then they must ensure every country regardless of political status is signatory to the NPT, including Israel.

Either way, one sided resolutions will simply no longer work in the Middle East.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.

An affective judicial system is the best judge of a functioning civil democracy

Leave a reply
 

An independent and modernized judicial system remains the best benchmark of a civilized democracy. Progress remains to be made, although the government have admittedly been their own worst critic and have outlined the importance of a sound and respected judicial system, and their belief in the supremacy of the law. A prominent judicial system remains an interdependent component of society; one without Kurdistan will never become the democracy or place of civil rights that its own high-expectations demand.

The shift to democracy in Iraqi Kurdistan has been at times shaky but nonetheless historic. The region swiftly moved from contrasting rules, one designated by the authoritarian governance of Saddam Hussein, where basic human rights let alone civil liberties were at a premium, to the self-rule under the auspices of a new Kurdish parliament.

This unique opportunity to guide their own future has witnessed a number of fundamental milestones on the path towards a functioning democracy, but also a number of flaws and setbacks that have at times plagued the move towards a concept of democracy that Kurds want to model on Western standards but one that they believe could also serve as model for the greater Middle East.

The post Saddam era from 2003, was the ideal platform for much needed progress and to kick start the democratic project. Under the international spotlight and with pressure from their US allies, Kurdish leadership could hardly let the unique juncture slip from their grasp.

One of the fundamental pinnacles of a functioning democracy and a successful society is an affective judicial system and this is an area where Iraqi Kurdistan has had many a critic. Admittedly and to their credit, perhaps the government has been their own worst critic in this regard.

Criticisms of the government

Human rights organizations have often criticized the region for corruption, abuse of power and lack of the application of the rule of law.

With law enforcement mechanisms that require strengthening, this has meant little accountability, and the ability of individuals to manipulate the judicial system at times.

A frequent allegation is manipulation of power by the two main political parties that dominate government.  Party associations even today mean that a level of immunity is afforded. There have been allegations of arrests without warrants and limited tolerance to opposition.

However, while stating the criticisms, one must also acknowledge the sound improvements that have been noted by international bodies and the productive progress that has been made on a range of issues.

The fulcrum of progressing on this range of issues and the cornerstone of ensuring that the rule of law is applied remains the presence of an affective and independent judicial system. The notion of an efficient judicial system is based on a number of intertwined aspects.

Firstly, the judicial system itself must be transparent and work within the remit of defined laws. It is only with the provision of such laws that the judicial system will have a roadmap and clear guidelines on to which to base the platform of its operations.

Although significant laws have been passed, especially in the last few years, there still lacks a greater basis for a working judicial system. Particularly before the downfall of the Iraqi regime in 2003, many of the laws applied in Iraq were based on Baathist laws at the time. This was hardly the ingredient or the inspiration for the model of civil democracy that the region craved.

For example, old Baathist press laws meant many journalists were imprisoned for criticism or accusations of “defamation”. For instance, under article 433 of the old law, many individuals were harshly punished.

Without a needed level of transparency and impartiality, at times court cases have been the subject of influence and judgments have been deemed arbitrary.

The key personnel of the system

The cornerstone of courts is the availability of experienced and independent judges. Many well known judges operate from the days of the Saddam Hussein regime and political interfere and influence of judiciary staffing naturally places the integrity of courts into question.

Judges should have the utmost credentials and integrity in the fulfillment of their important duty. Lawyers and Judges must themselves be protected by law. No judge or lawyer, however a controversial a case that they defend, should be a victims of the system themselves and become targets for abuse.

Training and qualification of judges must be an integral part of any government motion to shaping the judicial system.

Judges and lawyers must possess wide ranging knowledge, specifically in dealing with social and ethical issues. There must very clear guidelines and a transparent method for dealing with aspects such violence against woman, perjury and the abuse of power.

The title of judge carries a special responsibility and as such wrongdoing or corruption at this level, becomes a key frailty for all of greater society. As such impartiality is a firm prerequisite and courts and judges can only function and fulfill their duty when they work strictly within the remit of clearly defined laws.

Any outside interferences or corrupt judges should itself be punished by law.

Equal before the law

The fulcrum of the judicial system must be equality for all of the citizens that it serves. This virtue should be granted regardless of ones political background or ideology and regardless of their race or religion.

An effective judicial system can only work with a government committed in formulating the main rights of society and enshrining these into laws to ensure their protection. A civilized democratic system means the provision of freedom and rights and ensuring that they are protected.

Democracy and a functioning judicial system work hand in hand, the absence of any of them strongly promotes a system that can be distorted and manipulated to ones advantage against the loss of another. This is against the every essence of justice.

An affective and respected judicial system is the most effective deterrent to those who wish to break laws or abuse their legally attained powers. There should be no slip up or double standards in the application of law or the pressing of charges.

A court ensures that the rights of a person are protected and judges can make decisions on criminal and civil cases. Any criminal offenses or breakages of law should only be acted upon with the provision of evidence and relevant witnesses.

In any state, the police force is generally the body that protects the community from those who break the law, in other words they are the law enforcement body and the “guardians” of the civil society. Consequently the government must be the main sponsor in ensuring that breaks in law are dealt with in a systemic and non-prejudiced manner.

The judicial system should aim to serve the core aspect of justice and justice alone.

Government recognition and initiatives

Although at times progress has been slow, to their credit the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) have often openly discussed and acknowledged deficiencies.

The KRG has initiated a number of key measures to support the judicial system. For example, the establishment of the Kurdistan Judges Union in 2007 was an important benchmark that the KRG Prime Minister Nerchirvan Barzani hailed as an important step towards his goal of an independent judicial system.

Prime Minister Barzani painted a strong picture in his speech on the importance of a “strong, independent and impartial judicial system”. Without such concepts according to Prime Minister Barzani, “it (society) cannot become a socially progressive, modern or a civilized society, a politically prosperous or stable community, or a developed commercial or economic”. In other words the presence of a strong and respected judicial system envelopes almost every aspects of society.

According to Prime Minister Barzani, “an independent judicial system is one of the most important and remarkable features of a genuine civilized democratic system”.

KRG has often emphasized its reform programs and reaffirmed their commitment in building the kind of judicial system needed to carry the region forward. Prime Minister Barzani in particular has often spoken passionately about modernizing and creating a strong, respected and independent judicial system. However, reformation and implementation of initiatives has at times been slow 

In a speech at a meeting around rule of law capacity building plan in February 2009, Prime Minister Barzani outlined six steps that were deemed highly necessary in achieving their goals. This included judicial training, simplification of the judicial process, developing investigative skills and technology, improvements to the prison system, public education curricula and benefiting from international initiatives conducted in the Middle East.

Prime Minister Barzani has been bold and dedicated to the renovation of the judicial system project as a one of the pillars of government. At the same speech, he focused on the judicial system as a major interdependent component, who’s failure to be achieved could “…hold back progress across a range of issues.”

Current situation

While some allegation by critics that there is an absence of the rule of law is somewhat exaggerated, Kurdistan lacks a number of aspects in regards to the application of law and also in the current judicial setup.

A principle step would be the advent of an official constitution when it is finally passed in parliament. After all, the blueprint of a democratic society as well as a judicial system is the presence of a constitution. This is followed by the onset of key laws to protect the rights of society. Such laws form as the fuel on which to operate the judicial vehicle.

Judges can pass judgments and lawyers can defend cases, but the ground level of the judicial system and protection of the rights of every individual is an organized, professional and experienced police force.

The current saturation of security forces must be reorganized with a much clearer delineation based on those protecting the region i.e. the Kurdistan Army and those installed to serve the law and the ensure the rights of the people are protected and respected. The police force must be trained to collect evidence, follow strict protocol and treat every individual with equality and respect 

At the base of society, if the police themselves do not correspond to law or are not in turn subjected to the rule of law, then the main ‘guardian’ of the judicial system critically fails.

The onset of key laws

On the one hand, the implementation of the rule of law must be firm. On the other hand, the government must support and encourage bodies to form new laws and legislation.

Some of the key changes include ensuring that criminal records are kept for all individuals. Any act of harm or violence, outside of the right of defense as determined by law, should be punishable in due accordance with the case in question. Any undue harassment, infiltration or subjugation of any individual should be strongly discouraged by relevant laws.

Similar to European countries, Kurdistan must have a strong adherence to a high-way code to regulate traffic. Traffic offenses such as speeding, should be upheld, including introducing a points-system on licenses. Cars should not be driven that fail to pass important health and safety and environmental standards. Insurance for all drivers should be a prerequisite, to ensure protection for all citizens.

If people understand they can not “get away” with trespasses of the law or breaks in social boundaries, then such offenses will be naturally reduced. For instance, protection for woman has certainly increased in law, but more should be done to punish those who perpetrate domestic violence.

Critically, no matter how many laws are in place, if a climate of fear is not dropped then woman in particular will never be keen to approach the law enforcers. Currently many crimes go unpunished due to fear of reprisals.

Businesses operating outside of laws and regulations should be met with fines and reprimanded, for example selling of expired produce and medication or products that clearly do not meet quality standards.

Laws and regulations must not only take into account fundamental civil rights and freedoms, other offences that damage environment or private property should be contained within legislation. For example, littering is a serious issue in Kurdistan and should be punishable according to the guidelines of the law concerning the offence.

Laws surrounding general public life such littering and motor regulations, should be clearly marked with appropriate sign-posts in public locations. Other rights of an individual should be communicated via other relevant mediums. People must be aware of their rights in a free civil society as well as their obligations in turn to the same society.

Non-governmental organizations

The best way to “police” or oversee governorate bodies or the police itself is the encouragement and support for non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In principle, the KRG has been very open when it comes to scrutiny from international bodies and has strived for improvement at consistent intervals. However, the advent of truly independent and unhindered NGO bodies within the Kurdistan region, who work under the protection of the law, is highly essential. Kurdish NGO’s have often complained of interference and obstacles in the fulfillment of their work.

Such independent bodies are arguably the best gauge on which to analyze civil liberties of society and to evaluate the integrity of the judicial system. Similar to NGO’s, trade unions should be encouraged in the quest for attaining a modern civil society.  Trade Unions should be independent and serve a broad range of interests.

The knowledge of a security and police force that has integrity and is itself not immune to the law is the best signal to society.

In Kurdistan, often who you know goes a long way. However, breaks in law should not be masked by one’s status. Cases were breaks in law are condoned or are “erased” due to influences higher up, should itself come under strong scrutiny and the law, without ramifications.

Economic and investment

Judicial system does not merely apply to ensuring civil rights, protection of freedoms and bringing criminals to justice. The judicial system must also strongly protect aspects of business and investment.

The economy is booming in Kurdistan and business interest is building rapidly, however for the government realization of strong foreign investment to take off, foreign companies must have the assurance that they are strongly protected under Kurdish law.

Furthermore, Kurdish business itself must be regulated and protected by law and clear guidelines. This ensures fiscal corruption is limited and no business can operate outside of the law or at the expense of another. Ensuring free trade in business is much like ensuring freedom in civil society.

Freedom and equality runs deep in business too. There will undoubtedly be lawsuits against business, but for the evolvement of Kurdish society, employees must be protected. This includes cases of wrongful dismal, sexual harassment or discrimination. These are all aspects that are protected by law in Western societies.

In reality, the move towards a western model of democracy and civil society will take time. However, the main factor for the KRG is to develop the foundations with great care. Its not east for a region that has only gained self rule for a very short period of time and in a historically hostile region, to meet their own high-expectations all too easily.

The first step is to change the mindset of the population and win their trust that breaks in law will be dealt with equitably, seriously and without exception.

The road to fulfillment of goals

By the lofty standards that they have set and improvements they have openly discussed, the government is still on the road to fulfillment but the journey has many strides to go.

Achievement and modernization, especially in a short period of time, is not easy but half the battle is a realization of your failings and discussing them in clear and frank terms. The other half of the battle may take time, but needs to be driven consistently and with determination.

Recent legislation to enhance judicial independence is most welcome, but this is only one cog in the greater judicial machine. The other cog is strengthening of sources of law that regulate rights, and sources that also serve to determine the level of punishment. As discussed, the principle of the rule of law must be clear and consistent, no matter the background, affiliation or status of an individual.

The most component, however, of the judicial vehicle are of course the drivers themselves. Without proficient, dedicated and highly respected judges and lawyers with the utmost integrity, the new all conquering judicial machine will simply stall.

With the onset and encouragement of NGO’s and regulatory authorities, this will further ensure that not only does the region have a productive and efficient judiciary system, but also one that is transparent, openly works independently, consistently and that itself functions to the rule of law.

As such individuals should have the right to retrials and appeals, and the system should be clear for taking cases to higher courts or even international courts.

After the fall of the brutal Saddam dictatorship, Iraqis chose the courts as the method to inflict justice. Justice through civilized channels echoes more strongly than any other form of retribution.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.

As Kurdistan Government battles back against damning Amnesty International Report, the truth may well be somewhere in the middle.

Leave a reply

Human rights organization, Amnesty International, issued a new report on Kurdistan Region based on a fact finding mission in 2008. Whilst sounding improvements in the region, the main sway of the report was a warning that Kurdish security forces operate “beyond the rule of law”.

In a stark disapproval, Ismat Argushi, General Director of Security in Erbil, accused Amnesty international of hypocrisy, the use of outdated chronicles in allegations and lack of proof or evidence in some of the proposed cases.

Whilst one must assess the report by Amnesty International and the subsequent statement by General Director of Security in Erbil in due course and merit, the truth in reality is somewhere down the middle.

Kurdistan Region has taken remarkable steps since their hard-fought gains towards autonomy with a transition towards a system of democracy that is not only a first for Kurdistan, but is also new in Iraq. While advances have been made, the shortfalls and setbacks are obvious. Democracy and civil society is still in a period of infancy, and no democracy or nation renowned for human rights have reached the levels of today without their due teething-problems, obstacles and periods of instability.

Any reports by right organizations, Amnesty International or not, must address the subject firmly within its context. It’s very easy to pick out all the failings of a democracy and governance, who are although taking rapid steps towards modern society still have fundamental shortfalls that they have openly admitted that they are addressing.

In particular, in the post Saddam years since 2003, the Kurdistan Region has made strong strides in a number of areas with the advent of new laws around the media,  preservation of woman rights and protection of ethnic minorities. In many respects, particularly the rights of women and secular institutions, Kurdistan is much better placed than their Iraqi counterparts further south or some of their neighboring countries. Again when judging a subject within its context, one can see Kurdistan has some of most liberal press laws in the region.

The report by Amnesty International accused the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) of failing to significantly diminish the powers of the Asayish, especially the Parastin and the Dezgay Zanyari securities agencies of the two main ruling parties in Kurdistan, KDP and PUK.

The report highlights the relative stability in the region compared with the violence further south, whilst acknowledging it has “made some important human rights advances”. However, according to Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International Middle East and North Africa Programme Director, this should not mask the fact that “real problems” remain in the region, including “…arbitrary detention and torture, attacks on journalists and freedom of expression, and violence against women…” Amnesty International has urged the KRG to address these matters immediately and hold those responsible for human rights violations, “The KRG must take concrete steps to rein in these forces and make them fully accountable under the law if recent human rights gains are to prove effective,” said Smart.

While noting that the number of cases of detainees without charge or trial had dropped from thousands to hundreds, it concluded that cases of torture in custody remained high. The authorities must do more to uphold media freedom according to the report, whilst pointing to the need to “…redouble their efforts to overcome discrimination and violence against women”, citing cases of honor killings, violence and subordination.

The broad allegations by Amnesty International, was largely rebuked by the detailed statement released by Argushi. 

The perception of the statement was that the generalized nature of the report was not an accurate reflection on developments in the region in recent years and in particular was misleading to base some cases on old Baathist penal systems. The statement emphasized the government stance toward the importance of the rule of law and highlighted how the appointed legislative bodies had subsequently worked towards “…to draft new criminal codes in-line with international standards.”

The statement points to the “positive and encouraging steps” acknowledged in the report and specifically emphasized steps taken on a number of aspects of civil society and the rule of law in the quest to move toward a healthy democracy. Argushi believes “…this clearly demonstrates the KRG’s serious, concerted efforts to hold ourselves to the highest international standards on these issues”.

The statement in particular defends the Asayish, who were the main subjects of criticism, showcasing their “openness” and the fact they do not operate outside of the law. The statement showcased the strong government stance against the use of torture and the mechanisms available to punish the abuse of authority.

The Kurdistan Region has been very keen to move towards a more Western model of democracy and civil liberty. Human rights are something that the Kurds understand very well, after all it is a notion that they have been deprived from for so long. However, aspiration is one thing and advancement and attainment is another.

Whilst the Kurdistan Region has set these high-expectations, this doesn’t mean they can be achieved without its share of pains and criticism. However, in turn only with the acceptance of constructive criticism can such lofty heights be reached.

In the Kurdistan Region, minority representation is beyond the rest of Iraq and the greater region. When the rest of the country is ubiquitously bogged in violence and sectarian bloodshed, the security apparatus will never work perfectly, especially in the tough hostile political climate that is Iraq.

On their part, the Kurdistan Region should work towards eradicating the level of notoriety currently around the Asayish and some elements of freedom. A continued level of transparency is needed and region must in general at least demonstrate solid progress in any future report.

On the part of Amnesty International, it is very easy to be hyper-critical when you represent the sacred life and rights of a human been. However, even in a place like US, if one should delve deep into the subject matter, the police and security forces would come under heavy scrutiny. Even today there are cases of police racism and detainment of terrorism suspects under the harshest of conditions.

Let’s not forget a modern democracy such as Turkey with hopes and aspiration to join the elite EU club, has some of the notorious human rights records in the region, and long denied even the existence of a large section of its population.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.

Obama’s Tireless Quest to Reinvigorate Foreign Policy Results in Surprise Visit to Iraq

Leave a reply

Obama’s frantic foreign diplomacy drive incorporated a surprise visit to Iraq. While the US can point to hope and their “enormous sacrifice”, progress and national reconciliation in Iraq has clearly a long way to go.

US President Barrack Obama’s whirlwind eight-day foreign tour, encompassing six countries, ended with a surprise visit to Iraq and his first visit to a war-zone as commander-in-chief.

Obama met with key Iraqi leaders including Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Kurdistan Region President Massaud Barzani. The meetings aimed to enforce US-Iraqi relations in what is a critical year for Iraq, as well as to showcase appreciation for the US forces based in the country.

The US adventure in Iraq, six years since the downfall of Saddam Hussein, has not come cheap. Whilst significant progress has been made in Iraq since 2003, the rewards are a scant consolation for the deep US involvement and the financial burden that George W. Bush in particular has paid in Iraq, with over 4000 US lives lost and over $600 billion dollars spent.

With the inauguration of Obama as president, this raised expectations that a new page can be turned in US foreign policy, where Iraq had become a symbol of its deficiencies and controversies.

Obama has made no secret of his desire to withdraw troops as soon as possible, alter the US mission in Iraq and also waste no time in realigning and leveraging US foreign policy and introduce a fresh impetus that is greatly needed to either mend or refresh ties with key global powers.

Perception of Obama in Iraq

Obama was generally well-received by Iraqis. Most Iraqis south of the Kurdistan border, prefer a speedy withdrawal of US forces and see Obama in a positive light compared to his predecessor.

The fact that Obama was against the Iraqi invasion from the outset and Iraq is deemed as Bush’s war, affords Obama an opportunity to revitalize Iraqi-U.S. ties.

Obama emphasized the need to transition to the Iraqis, after years of sacrifice and allow the Iraqis “to take responsibility for their country.”

Clearly, not only does prolonged US engagement play into the hands of insurgents and hard-line elements of the Iraqi landscape, the US can simply ill-afford to continue to watch Iraqis reconcile at a leisurely rate, where other fires in the US radar rage.

An unprecedented global economic crisis and a forgotten war in Afghanistan, as well as a US foreign policy vehicle that is in urgent need of repair, highlight the US need for all the partners it can get, let alone take ties with traditional allies for granted. Put simply, Iraq is no longer the “make or break” headache it once was, with the world ever changing over the past 6 years.

Clearly some elements such as the Sadrist bloc, favour only total US withdrawal and it came as no surprise when they attacked Obama’s visit as a “barefaced interference”

The end of the beginning for Iraq

As the US slowly plans the end of its Iraqi adventure, the work for Iraqis has just begun. 6 years of violence, sectarian feuds and lack of security, only veiled the fractured and deeply divided Iraqi social mosaic. Achieving true elusive national reconciliation is more than just achieving security and stability in the country.

Security and stability is just the bridge to national reconciliation, if there is indeed a strong deep-rooted desire for this concept amongst all the groups.

Many obstacles remain and many key issues remain unresolved. The US administration has clearly put a lot of hope that 2009 will form a strong platform for Iraqis to resolve key differences and promote a relative form of national harmony so desperately craved.

Much of this hope lies on the Iraqi general elections set for the end of this year, which promises to bring Sunnis firmly into the political arena, as well as revise coalitions and power-sharing.

However, how productive a platform the elections will serve depends much on what Baghdad can achieve in the remaining months leading up to the elections. If the track-record is anything to go by, then there will be a few optimists, with deep-rooted animosity and mistrust still at large.

The Iraqi hunger to implement constitutional articles such as article 140, adoption of a national hydrocarbon law and implement a system of governance that can appease all parties, is largely out of the hands of the US. However, this doesn’t mean that the dawn of the end of the US in Iraq, means that the US can be a by-stander in developments. If 2009 doesn’t become the all defining milestone in Iraq and broad violence in turn erupts, realization of the anticipated US withdrawal in August 2010 will be interesting indeed.

Obama urged Iraqi Prime Minister to quicken the reconciliation pace, a notion that the Bush administration have been pushing for years before, with the focus still largely on enticing minority Sunnis into the political fold as well as in to the predominantly Shiite based security forces.

Baghdad has often promised much when it comes to meeting US benchmarks but in essence has achieved insufficiently to foster real progress.

Meeting with Kurdistan Region Delegation

Obama also met with Kurdistan Region President Massaud Barzani to discuss a number of situations in Kurdistan Region and Iraq. Clearly, pressing agenda items include edgy relationships between KRG and Baghdad and assurances that the Obama administration will not neglect Kurdish ties at the expense of other alliances.

One of the looming dangers in Iraq is the increasing stand-off between Erbil and Baghdad. It is the firm duty of the US administration to ensure that bilateral ties are promoted between both sides and active steps are taken by the US to resolve fundamental differences between each side, particularly over disputed areas and jurisdiction of security forces, long before any reduction of forces.

While the US have so far chosen a more passive role in the disputes between the Kurds and Baghdad, pointing to the democratic apparatus in place to resolve such disputes, it is their duty to ensure that the disputes are indeed resolved via democratic principles and they do not leave Iraq in a perilous and tentative state, regardless of their commitments to withdraw from Iraq or other pressing matters that they have on the table.

Moreover, the US should oversee that the enticement of Baathists into the political sphere by the al-Maliki government is not at the expense of the greater peace between Kurds and Arabs. Baghdad has been looking to diminish Kurdish power and letting prominent former Baathist hardliners out of the ropes, may well see them in direct confrontation with Kurds in the contested areas. A promotion of Sunni power in the north of Iraq, may well come as a trade-off to maintain Sunni-Shiite peace further south.

Reach out to the Muslim World

Clearly, success in the Middle East goes much further than just achieving a relative notion of success in Iraq. US foreign policy requires much needed healing across the greater Muslim world.

Obama’s keenness to visit Turkey so early in his tenure comes as no surprise, with its strategic position as well as its perception as an important benchmark for the region, with Turkey housing a Muslim democracy, a pro-Western outlook and secular institutions.

Obama is keen to introduce a new dawn in US relations with the Muslim world, far from the legacy and negative perception of Bush.

Not only did Bush fail to sufficiently entice historical nemesis into the diplomatic fold, but US policies in this time also drove a wedge between traditional allies.  With global crisis such the economic downturn and the broader battle against radicalism, even the might of the US can no longer afford a policy of unilateralism. If it can not sway contentious powers into the diplomatic arena, then the least it can do is not damage historical friendships.

Time is a virtue

As much as Obama’s historical ascendency to power has created much hope across the international sphere and with it the prospects of a new beginning, shifts in US policy will take time and concrete progress especially on matters relating to the Middle East may take even longer than the maximum of two presidential terms that Obama can achieve as president.

As much as Bush’s policies took time to implement and foreign relationships deteriorated over a period of time, it will take Obama time to unravel and renew US foreign policy and promote new bonds with global powers.

This concept is best demonstrated with Iraq, where any hasty decisions by Obama may well place a nail in his presidential coffin before his work has even begun. To a great extent, he will have to inherit and assume Bush’s policies, particularly in the short-term, and his hands will be inevitably tied by previous dealings in Iraq.

As much as he has touted swift withdrawal, a cornerstone of his election campaign, any withdrawal must be assessed and conducted in the most responsible manner.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

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

A Look at Democracy in Kurdistan

Leave a reply

From fighting in the mountains to running in parliament, fundamental achievements have been made since 1991 but democracy is still bogged by changing times, factional alliances and increasing expectations of the people.

To state that 1991 was a unique milestone in Kurdish history is perhaps the understatement of the century, for the Kurds, quite literally.

The Kurds have suffered immeasurably under authoritarian Arab rule since the creation of the artificial state of Iraq. Finally free from the totalitarian grip of Saddam Hussein after immense sacrifice, Kurds were now able to decide their own future and also showcase the virtue of self-determination that they had been deprived for so long.

And what better way to showcase your credentials for statehood and self-rule than show the world and your nemesis in the region that you are capable of a democracy and a way of governance that not only would be unique in Kurdistan as it would be a first, but one that could also serve as a benchmark for the rest of region.

Sometimes the best way to highlight what your enemies fail to give you is to implement it yourself. Kurds have tried hard to implement a system of tolerance to other religions and ethnicities that they themselves have not received. Where their democratic liberties have been deprived, they have chosen to win back their lost rights such as over the city of Kirkuk, in a democratic manner than by using the same force that their enemies would have used on them.

Iraqi Kurdistan legislative elections of 1992

On May 19th 1992, history was made as the first ever elections were successfully held in Iraqi Kurdistan. For the first time, the Kurdish people could choose who they voted for as elections were made to the Kurdistan National Assembly (KNA), the parliament of the Kurdistan Region. It was not only the first ever elections in Kurdistan, but was also the first free and fair parliamentary elections in Iraq itself.

105 seats were made available in the KNA with 5 seats reserved for the Assyrian community. The 7% threshold that political parties had to achieve ensured that the seats were contested between the two main parties in Kurdistan, Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) led alliance. This system naturally alienated some parties such as the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan (who achieved just over 5% of the vote), and this later contributed to difficulties with Islamists in later years.

Though the KDP had won 51 seats and the PUK alliance 49 seats, it was agreed to share power 50-50. The first law was passed by the assembly a few months later, establishing it as the region’s legislature. 

The elections were clearly a monumental achievement for a region that had fought hard to see such an elusive day, and was well commended by a number of international observers.

However, for all the early promise, democracy in Kurdistan fast displayed a number of fundamental flaws as the infant roots of democracy in the region would soon haunt the short-lived gains.  

Civil war and the stalling of democracy

The euphoria around the recently won freedoms and the historical milestone of democratic elections soon turned sour. A number of differences soon resulted in perhaps one of the most unforgettable events in Kurdish history, as a bloody civil war between the PDK and PUK Peshmerga forces raged between 1994 and1997.

In the period around the civil war, and the ensuing years after it, democracy suffered a major setback in Kurdistan. The deep rifts between Massaud Barzani, who narrowly won the presidential elections that were conjointly held in 1992, and Jalal Talabani, resulted in control of Erbil changing hands between both sides on a number of occasions

Iraqi Kurdistan was then affectively split into two administrations, one PUK controlled from Suleimanyia and one PDK based from Erbil. The de facto delineation between both administrations naturally diluted full democratic practices. This period saw freedoms restricted and a tense political climate in the two major cities. Tolerance for supporters of each group in opposing regions was minimal.

A UN embargo on Iraq coupled with Saddam’s own brutal economic impediment on the region, further compounded matters in the region.

This was made worse, as Kurdistan at the time before UN oil for food program, suffered from inflation and lack of commerce and basic necessities.

However, with the UN agreeing to permit authorized oil exports in Iraq, on the provision of aid to the people, this brought a welcome relief for the Kurdish people. A 13% share of oil revenues, and custom duties from trade with Turkey, brought welcome income to kick-start much needed development in the region.

Washington Accord

Although no major fighting took place after 1st September 1996, it was much a case of no war and no peace. This was until a peace deal, referred to as the Washington Accord, was brokered under the auspices of the Clinton administration, that saw both the PDK and PUK agreeing to a transitional power sharing followed by elections,  equitable distribution of revenues and the easing of restriction of movement between their regions.

With the Kurds extremely keen to win support for long-term Kurdish autonomy, there was little room for a lack of reconciliation.

In spite of the agreement, the thawing of ties was very much at a leisurely rate and animosity remained. Implementation of the accord was stalled by disputes over revenue and the format of the proposed joint administration.

In 2001, the administrations finally resumed formal dialogue and eased restriction of travel. The two sides moved quicker to resolve their differences with the emergence of a militant Islamist group, Ansar al-Islam with ties to al-Qaeda. Reconciliation was deepened further with US plans for the removal of Saddam from power in 2002. Barzani and Talabani had the first face-to-face dialogue in this time for seven years.

The Kurdish parliament convened later that year for the first time since 1994 to implement the Washington Accord and get the ball for legislative elections rolling.

General elections were not held until 2005, almost 13 full years since the landmark elections of 1992 that offered much hope to a nation that was already ravaged by repression and war, but delivered setbacks.

Changing political climate post 2003

Although a grainier form of democracy was still practiced with relative civil liberties and municipal elections in opposing administrations, it was hardly in a commendable shape prior to 2003. The fall of Saddam Hussein and the second Gulf War, not only brought unprecedented elections to Iraq, but also kick started democracy in Kurdistan.

With the removal of Saddam Hussein and all the prospects of a new Iraq, Kurdish leaders were at a unique juncture. Under full international view placated by a growing threat from the Turkish government over ever-increasing Kurdish ambitions at the dawn of their new era, Kurds could ill-afford not to represent a united front lest waste an opportunity to promote a strong brand of democracy in their region, as Iraq hit the international spotlight. A united front was encouraged by the US, with strong ties and a reliance on Iraqi Kurds, as their Iraqi adventure was soon derailed.

Elections to the KNA were held on 30th January 2005, to coincide with the Iraqi elections and elections to the provincial elections. The turnout was high as over 1.7 million people voted. There were 111 seats contested in the elections via a system of proportional representation. This time the PDK and PUK united under one list, the Democratic Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan, attaining 104 seats or just over 89% of the votes.

The alliance, at least on paper, forged a strong unity across a number of parties, including the Kurdistan Islamic Union, Turkmen Party and other minority parties.

Current state of democracy

Although the democratic system in Kurdistan is far from perfect, achievements in less than 2 decades and particularly in the last 6 years have been historic. No democracy has ever flourished without its pains and conflicts, and Kurdistan is no different.

In the time since its inception, the parliament has passed a number of important laws, covering press, economy, administration, general society and culture. The improvements in freedoms and laws since 2003 have been noticeable, for example with increasing rights for woman and increased government tolerance to opposition.

Elections for the KNA are to be held every four years as stipulated in article 8 of the Kurdistan Electoral Law. Elections for the KNA are based on a closed party-list representation system, meaning that the electorate votes for the list of candidates of a party rather than individual candidates. Seats are allocated to each party in proportion to the number of votes it receives, and the party is then free to choose someone from its candidate list.

Amongst the main highlights of the Kurdish democratic experience is that the system of government is secular, freedom and practice of faith are high and there is a strong encouragement for wide representation across ethnicities in the region. As an example, there is a liberal attitude to alcohol consumption, wearing of head-scarves and public expression of love.

The current system ensures that if no party representing a minority wins a seat, one seat is automatically awarded to that minority (for example, Assyrians, Chaldeans or Turkmen). There is currently one independent and 14 political parties represented in the KNA.

Another fundamental benefit in the current system is the strong representation for women with the legal requirement that at least 25% of the parliamentarians must be women.

The passing of several laws has heavily contributed to the regions relative economic progress and social progression in recent years. Politicians have been generally quick to adapt laws to accommodate the present socioeconomic environment and modernize the legislative aspects of the region in line with modern-day demands, for example a European standard investment law, the outlawing of polygamous marriages and increasing intolerance to honor killings.

Although, the KRG has evolved a great deal of the past few years, high expectations of the people, means that the government will need to continuously adapt to meet the growing pressure from the public.

For example, an open party listing where people can choose their candidates is strongly advocated. Such a system, were individuals are directly voted into parliament, puts the people more in choice of their democracy and at the same time places pressure on politicians to serve the very people, who have purposely selected him to full his duty.

Flaws of the democratic system

Although, the achievements have been commendable in a short period of time, there are also a number of flaws in the application of democracy in Kurdistan. Elements of corruption still exist in government and nepotism has been an all-too frequent criticism. Although, the major cities have seen major economic boom and construction projects, basic services are still lacking across the social spectrum. The increasing economic prosperity, has created a growing rich-list and depending on where you visit in Erbil, there is a contrasting standard of living amongst the citizens.

There is still an element of apprehension that the parliament is really supporting and serving the people.  There is a general consensus that parliamentarians have to be more attentive to public concerns and demands. Accountability must increase for this to be realized.

In the West, where politicians make mistakes or attract controversy, their political careers are often quickly doomed and public enquiries are launched. However, this level of accountability to perform, answer to mistakes and actions and generally deliver under great public strain is somewhat lacking.

However, to truly augment the democratic process, the availability of an experienced and proficient pool of politicians to create a vibrant level of competition and opposition takes time. The transition from been freedom fighters in the mountains, to running a Western democracy is hardly a small gap to plug.

Regional expertise and intellectualism has improved significantly, aided by an educated and developing Diaspora. As the people become more accustomed to rights, freedoms and privileges, this has increased pressure on the government to raise parliamentary standards.

The parliament must respond to the will and voice of the people, which is not always the case in Kurdistan.

However, one must also judge a subject within its context. With the exception of Turkey, which houses many constraints of its own, neighboring countries can hardly be classified as model democracies. Democracy in Iraq itself is flawed, with many constitutional stipulations voted by millions such as article 140 failing to attract serious attention in its implementation.

At least in Kurdistan minorities have representation, for decades the Kurds, forming a large part of the population of Turkey did not have a single voice in the Turkish parliament. Even today, cultural tolerance is hardly to a European standard, and this comes from a country who has received wide-scale credit as a strong example of an Islamic democracy and with ambitions to join the EU.

With a good level of religious and social tolerance and a ubiquitous aim of attracting support from major global powers, it is evident that Kurdish leaders have obviously tried hard to implement a system of government that is closer to the West than the geographically closer East.

The need for adaptation and evolvement

Democratic elections in Kurdistan are to a large extent predictable. Much like the US where certain states have become beacons of support for either the Democrats or Republicans, there is a general affiliation across parts of the region for either PDK or PUK. You can almost determine a rough geographical electoral line between the PDK and PUK.

However, although there have been criticism in the past of a lack of political opposition, there are signs that some political parties are evolving.  For example, recent instability in the PUK alliances briefly resulted in strong rumors of the splitting up of the party.

The Kurdistan parliament should work to become a reflection of the will of the people, and there must be a closer correlation between both sides. Politics must adapt to the people and environment and not the other way around.

At times in Kurdistan, it is who you know and not who you are that will help in your progress. Commerce, investments and administration still runs deeply through government. For example set up of companies, buying of land and the majority of the workforce is under the direct employment and jurisdiction of the government.

Growing freedoms in Kurdistan can be seen in the wide range of liberal papers, which are growingly confident in constructive criticism and opposition to the government and in the debate of regional affairs. Although, Kurdistan could tout a flourishing press since it won autonomy, too often they were mouthpieces or under the control of political parties. As a result, there was little room for independents without approval from government authorities.

The next elections in Kurdistan are just around the corner, May 2009 to be exact, and it serves to be an interesting reflection of the feeling of the people in the last 4 years or so. There is still a notion of a conceptual battle between the old school of thought and new liberal minds in Kurdistan.

Democracy in Kurdistan may not be perfect but Western democracy was not created in 2 decades. Even democracy in the US and recently in Europe, resulted in the rise of extremists to power and the manipulation of democratic systems, and the onset of deadly wars. Only these painful mental scars contributed to the efficient, tolerant and dynamic Western forms of democracy.

In an imperfect region, it is hardly fair to scrutinize Kurdish democracy and pick out its evident failing in a sea of political and social progression in the region in a short period of time. However this is no means an excuse for Kurdish politicians to rest on their laurels and not strive to improve the region, politic establishments and in the way the serve the very entity they have been created for, the people.

Just because Western democracy learned the hard-way by decades of evolution and adaptation amidst changing global climates, Kurdish politicians must not use this as an excuse to drag their feet on the advancement of democracy in the region. Time is not always a pertinent excuse for failings, if the failings are visible. There is nothing to say with tweaks and evolution, that Kurdistan will not become a model democracy across the global sphere and just the Middle East, in a much shorter time span than by most global standards.

However, we must not also forget that democracy in Kurdistan is to a great extent intertwined with democracy in Iraq, as they are officially part of one state. Democracy in Iraq is far from perfect and when it comes to the practice of federal democracy, such as the implementation of national legislations and an elected constitution, it takes two to tango.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

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

The US, not winning in Iraq and losing in Afghanistan

Leave a reply

As US initiates a frantic diplomatic drive, recent foreign policy in the Middle East demonstrates that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts

To many, Afghanistan has long become a forgotten war. After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Afghanistan became the primary focus of the former US president George W. Bush’s new world order. The speedy and decisive manner of the US victory against the Taleban regime in 2001, afforded the US a perceived rest bite to concentrate on another more pressing foreign policy agenda item, Iraq.

While the US has been bogged into a costly and protracted occupation in Iraq, the foremost attention of the US was battling against a raging insurgency and consequent insecurity in Iraq and promoting national reconciliation and a democracy that was hoped to serve as a beacon for the greater region.

Even as the US has stationed thousands of troops in Iraq, at a cost of billions of dollars, the all elusive “victory” in Iraq has been unachievable. As the US became progressively entrenched into the Iraqi security nightmare and the embittered nature of the Iraqi political horizon, the focus turned to a much more relative concept of “success”.

US strategy and ideals on the Middle East have suffered as firstly the beacon of light that they had hoped would emerge from the Mesopotamian plains has failed to significantly materialise, whilst other key factors in the region have been neglected.

Under new US president Barack Obama, the US appears keen to leverage the time, money and resources across the Middle East. While they cannot win in Iraq in the manner they had first hoped, they can not simply continue to invest heavily in Iraq and wait patiently while other parts of the region slip further from their grasp.

Losing the war in Afghanistan

While the US certainly has not won the war in Iraq, by their own admission they are losing the war in Afghanistan.

The US military, already stretched, simply could not accommodate the same intensity in Afghanistan as in Iraq that the new realities on the ground have demanded in the recent years. The Taleban are very much resurgent in Afghanistan, and both in terms of the military capability of the NATO forces spearheading the Afghan mission or in the sphere of political progress, the US and its allies have been fire-fighting for far too long in Afghanistan.

The ease of the victory against the Taleban meant that Afghanistan was seen as somewhat of a forgone conclusion, a mistake that was gravely repeated after the apparent ease by which Saddam Hussein was removed from power in Iraq that was then followed by a brief episode of national euphoria.

Now with Obama at the helm, Afghanistan is set to become a forefront of US foreign policy.

The whole is greater than the sum of the parts

Iraq has received much more attention for a number of reasons. Iraq has all the ingredients to destabilise the region en-masse. Not only have the US been under internal pressure to stabilise and succeed in Iraq, but it also been pressured further by mindful Sunni neighbours and also Turkey. The drastic implications of a failed Iraqi state and the risk of its disintegration, leading to an expansion of the war across its borders, was perceived to be much pertinent than the reawakening of the Taleban threat.

Furthermore, with huge oil reserves in Iraq, stability and prosperity in Iraq had a global focus.

Bush’s tough adventure in Iraq has meant that ties with neighbouring countries have become hindered, and in the case of Iran has resulted in a proxy war. Furthermore, other historic problems such as attaining elusive peace between Israel and the Palestinians and the growing threat of Iran, have been side tracked.

Now the Obama administration realises that even significant democratic success in Iraq will not be enough to dispel the negative perception of the US in the Middle East and the general antagonism felt by the Muslim world. Bush’s foreign policy to a great extent alienated the broader Middle Eastern landscape, prompting Obama to vow to listen and not dictate as he sought to heal the wounds inflicted since the turn of the century.

The US and the West simply can not afford to judge the Middle East in terms of its parts, without looking at the bigger picture. The Middle East has a much greater entanglement and influences and meddling from neighbouring countries are as significant as the individual country under the spotlight.

Fire-fighting or preventing the fire?

The plight of the US and its allies in Afghanistan can be very much likened to a fire fighting exercise without truly striking at the root of the problem. By dropping their guard, the Taleban have been allowed to regroup and pose a menacing threat as ever.

Just as the Iraqi tide was only finally turned by appeasing insurgent elements and appealing to the moderate masses, the Afghan war will only succeed by winning the hearts and minds of the population.

It is down to the Afghan population to determine how this war will pan out, and not the military arsenal of the West. Like Iraq, Afghanistan has too suffered from deep-rooted disparity and lack of national unity. Like much of the Iraqi population, the Afghan people have suffered tremendously from three decades of deadly wars that has shattered the economy and the countries infrastructure.

At such a crippling disadvantage, progression will not be quick, but the foundation to a new flourishing state must be start with solid governance in Kabul that can quickly assume overall security, provide basis social services, fight corruption, promote unity and entice moderate elements into the political arena.

In the short-term, the decision to divert thousands of US troops to Afghanistan will aid to bridge a much needed security gap in the country. While the US administration may have to “restart” its mission in Afghanistan, it is now faced with a much tenser regional climate. Pakistan is facing a difficult battle of its own with growing friction blighting ties with US, and with key Western allies not keen to extend their military adventure, fearing that they will be sucked into a vacuum for many years to come.

In 2001, given the extraordinary events of 9/11, most Western allies were swift respond positively to Bush’s plea that they were “with us or against us”. However, the economic and political landscape has changed a great deal since then.

The countries presidential election this year will be an important milestone and a chance for the Kabul political hierarchy to get a firm grip with much needed improvement in governance.

Ultimately it’s the Afghan national government that can sway the true direction of the country, all the West can do is buy time and short-term stability, while Afghans make fast-track progress and move towards self-sufficiency. Improvements in the political circles and basic services will go a long way to improving mindsets of the Afghan people.

Adapting tactics

Afghan officials have welcome Barack Obama’s willingness to adapt tactics used to deal with more moderate insurgency in Iraq. There is a clear realisation that fulcrum of the fight starts on the ground in Afghan towns and villages.

Intelligence from sections of the Afghan population has already been a major factor in the battle against the Taleban, and extending this by engaging the local population more directly both in terms of tactics and military means will be crucial.

Without an ell-encompassing strategy, throwing more troops at the Afghanistan problem will not serve as a means to an ends, but a platform to become sucked into a quagmire. Presidential elections and new tactics in Afghanistan will help to break the stalemate that NATO commanders have long expressed was undermining their mission.

It will also allow NATO forces to maintain gains, by handing “cleared” zone to capable and dependable local Afghan security forces. The climate of fear and the strained local security apparatus, often has resulted in cleared areas been redeployed all too quickly by Taleban forces.

Reaching out to the people to garner key support is only one part of Obama’s new strategy across the Middle East.

Frantic Diplomacy Drive

Since his highly-publicised inauguration, Obama has wasted no time in getting to work on his foreign policy vision.

Only this week, a frantic two-day American diplomatic drive, included overtures to Russia where ties were very much strained in 2008 over the Russian invasion of Georgia and contentious plans for a US missile defence system in Eastern Europe, and also Iran where a communication channel is acutely craved by the US administration, in addition to a general reach out to Muslim countries in the region.

In the not so distant future, Obama is set to visit Turkey to give a first speech in a Muslim country.

Overtures to Iran, Syria, Russia and moderate elements of Taleban have turned a few eyes. It has been long mentioned by Obama about the need to open unconditional diplomatic channels to Tehran, if it could “unclench” its fist, but at the time when there are wide reports that Iran has enough enriched uranium to make one nuclear weapon, it makes US  advances towards Iran all the more contentious.

However, it is evident that for US foreign policy to succeed in the larger context, concessions will be vital if not a prerequisite for regional foreign policy healing. Diplomatic initiatives towards Iran may eventually see it swayed from nuclear programmes, and lead to a lifting of international sanctions on Iran, in turn for more “productive” Iranian support in Iraq and Afghanistan, where Iran could play a more supportive part in the battle against the Taleban and promotion of national unity. Russians could be swayed by the dropping of the missile system defence plans in Europe, if Russians can sufficiently convince their Iranian counterparts to steer clear from nuclear ambitions.

Effectively manoeuvring regional ties, by resetting relations with the Russians as widely publicised at the recent meeting between both countries and breaking the stalemate with other long-time adversaries, may then contribute in turn towards advances in other US goals, such as stability in Afghanistan and winning the battle against extremism 

Americans can longer afford to lose the wars that they are currently fighting with such perceived sacrifice and simultaneously drive a wedge between historic foes and other contentious regional powers.

The new US drive was best summed up by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, emphasising their immense effort to create more partners and less adversaries.

With the globe exponentially smaller and ever more intrinsically linked, the time for unilateralism is certainly over.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

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

The ‘beginning of the end’ for the US may well be just the start for sovereign Iraq

Leave a reply

With ubiquitous obstacles, much elusive progress in Iraq and a highly-costly liberation, record books may well show Iraq as  a war the US did not win, but a war that they “survived”.

In a speech at the Marine Corps base of Camp Lejeune, U.S president Barack Obama, announced the onset of a “new” strategy in Iraq and effectively the withdrawal of the bulk of US troops by the end of August 2009, by which time the U.S. “combat mission” would have ended.

Withdrawal from Iraq was on one of the pillars of Obama’s election campaign, and was widely anticipated. For many, Obama opted for the middle course of three possibilities – withdrawal within 16 months of taking office as he had often pledged and a more long-term course preferred by others. 

While this may point to a significant milestone in the contentious U.S. episode in Iraq, the U.S. and Iraqi marriage, and specifically their military attachment is far from over.

The beginning of the end?

As Obama expressed gratitude for the sacrifices of U.S. personnel and the “hard-earned” progress achieved, the key message was that the U.S. was now in its concluding chapters in its “war” in Iraq.

In spite of much initial euphoria and expectation, solid progress in Iraq has been hard to come by and with Iraq seemingly achieving some semblance of security and stability, for Washington this may be the crucial window of opportunity needed to finally execute a highly-elusive U.S. exit strategy.

The liberation of Iraq has certainly been far from plain sailing, and the Republican casualty in recent elections was arguably due to the controversial and costly invasion of Iraq as any other matter.

Whether Obama can leave “responsibly” as promised, may be as ambiguous as George W. Bush’s pledge of “success” in Iraq.

Obama may speak with gusto and determination on the situation but ultimately Obama is a realist and that is reflected in the decision to maintain up to 50,000 U.S. troops in Iraq until end of 2011, in line with the protracted Status of Forces Agreement (Sofa) signed by the Bush administration and Baghdad.

Obama emphasised that while progress was made, there were still “difficult days ahead” in Iraq. This statement symbolises the anxiety still expressed in the White House and the relative flexibility that is likely to be appointed by Washington in spite of what appears as an end road for the U.S. military in Iraq.

Iraqi obstacles to prosperity

While the U.S. can point to significant gains in recent years and on paper what appears as a markedly improved security situation and more credible political landscape in Iraq, this may prove to be the end of the beginning for Iraq.

If progress can be measured in terms of security and sectarian violence, then Iraq has certainly advanced at a rapid if not fragile pace in recent years, thanks largely to the surge strategy of Bush.

However, stability and progress must be viewed with as much focus in the long-term as any short-term success measures. In this respect Iraq may have a considerable distance to go.

Iraq remains a disparate entity and key national differences can not be easily papered over by Western notions of democracy, and will remain to blight and hinder the Iraqi social horizon, until all sides truly embrace the principles of compromise, equality and the will of the people.

Beneath the surface, political progress in Iraq has been slow and many key milestones remain elusive.  This includes a fundamental lack of a national hydrocarbon law and constitutional rifts.

Difference over a constitution, the very blueprint of the national values and governance, are no small matter. Differences about how to distribute Iraq’s immense oil wealth, to share power amongst the various communities and resolve highly-emotive topics such the jurisdiction of disputed territories is nothing short of elements that can implode at any time.

Over to you, Iraq

The key message by Bush and now Obama is a full return of Iraq to Iraqis. The U.S. has introduced the notion of democracy and now Iraqi’s can decide their fate under this new umbrella.

In principle this makes logical and indeed practical sense. However, where the gulf in differences is too wide and deep-rooted, democracy and diplomacy may not be so simple to implement. 

Washington is certainly correct in the sense it is down to Iraqis to decide their fortunes. Certainly only the Iraqis can determine the stability, prosperity and level of national reconciliation. No amount of U.S. influence can change the fundamental fact that it is down to Iraqis to make real compromises and select systems of government that will stitch the countries groupings together in relative harmony.

On the surface, Iraq has the military might to enforce security. This is represented by the growingly powerful Iraqi national army, the less official but highly-influential Sunni Awakening Council forces, ever menacing Shiite militia forces and significant and experienced Kurdish Peshmerga forces.

Pooled together, Iraq has a mighty force in place that can easily keep security and national defence. Working against each other, Iraq has all of the ingredients for one of the most violent civil wars in living memory.

Kurdish pleas for US intervention

As rifts between Erbil and Baghdad seem to be widening at an alarming pace, key disagreements between both sides, particularly over Kirkuk and other disputed territories, have stoked a vicious war of words.

Plea’s by Kurdish leaders for U.S. intervention has fallen on deaf ears, with the U.S. emphasising that there is now a democratic apparatus in place to resolve such matters.

However, U.S. officials fail to acknowledge the repercussions if these same democratic systems are ignored. Sidelining constitutional matters elected by millions and delaying key milestones is far from democratic.

But the U.S. is no fool. They may support only the will of the Iraqi people on the surface, but they know fully well that applying democracy in such a sphere is sometimes like applying square pegs to a round hole, especially since the results of these principles are never likely to be embraced by factions that fear to “lose” from such popular votes.

Let’s not forget that there was even democracy under Saddam Hussein – but you can vote for only one man and one party.

Obama’s ever-increasing plate

While on the surface, much positivity is been aired about future prospects in Iraq, for the U.S. it may be a case of achieving the “best” short-term outcome, than the ideal outcome.

However, times have changed drastically since the original invasion in 2003. Highly-costly and prolonged wars in Iraq have cost the U.S. economy hundreds of billions of dollars, without every reaping fundamental long-term gains for these sacrifices. Throw in one of the worst global financial crisis in living memory, a deepening recession in the U.S. and a resurgent Taliban in the forgotten war that is Afghanistan, the U.S. can simply ill-afford to fine-tune the current situation in Iraq and must now start to concentrate on more “urgent” matters.

This does not equate to a U.S. mindset that the Iraqi projects are complete or that they can now abandon the Iraqi experience. Simply, they can not wait impatiently for years to come for Iraqis to reconcile at a leisurely rate, while their other interests in the Middle East and at home suffer immeasurably.

Obama will need to learn from the failures of his predecessor and that means that one can not judge Iraq without considering the greater context of the Middle East. Even if U.S. puts all their eggs in one basket and achieves a real and solid democracy in Iraq, U.S. efforts will be wasted if other key figures in the region are not wooed sufficiently, and discouraged from preying on their neighbouring Iraqi victims like vultures.

U.S. officials acknowledge the need to reach out to the greater Middle Eastern arena, and particularly Iran and Syria. Furthermore, as Iraq became the Republican Achilles heel, the Palestinian roadmap suffered, and this may need the full focus of Obama to be reignited.

Broad Support for Obama’s Plan

Although some remain concerned that Obama’s election pledge was watered down and the residual force remained significant through to 2011, Obama received broad support for the “new strategy” of his national security team.

The Republicans remained generally supportive, although they were keen to showcase the achievements of the Bush administration in getting to this stage.

Others U.S. politicians, as well as key Iraqi politicians, have expresses anxiety that the withdrawal could reverse the dramatic but tentative gains to date.

On his part, Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki stated his confidence that Iraqi forces were capable of providing security in the absence of U.S. forces.

In principle, Obama has tried to be tactful and positive on the surface but real uncertainty will remain in his mind. Obama tried to be reassuring and clear in his statements, but will know much will depend on how Iraqis progress, specifically with the national elections scheduled for later this year.

Although, the White House have pointed to the democratic apparatus to resolve national issues and aired common optimism, behind the scenes they will remain watchful to how Iraqis shape their future.

How the remaining chapters of the Iraqi war unravels is dependent on the Iraqis, but the U.S. must can ill afford, after reaching this stage with much sacrifice by their own admission, simply believe that they have fulfilled their end of the bargain.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.

An Analysis: Iraqi Kurdish ties with Iran, and Islamist Revolution of ’79

Leave a reply

On the back of the first visit to Kurdistan Region by an Iranian Foreign Minister, the Globe assesses the development of ties between both sides.

Iraqi Kurds enjoy cultural and historic ties with Iran, but it was onset of the 1979 Islamic revolution that truly propelled ties.

Iranian foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, visited Erbil last week, coinciding with the 30th anniversary of the Islamist revolution in Iran. The first visit by an Iranian foreign minister to Kurdistan Region symbolises productive ties between both governments, and the common desire for expansion of economic, political and cultural links.

The past few official visits between each party, have been conducted in a positive atmosphere, where each party has often emphasized warm relations and historical bonds between both nations.

However, whilst the Iraqi Kurds and the Iranian government may enjoy historic cultural ties and some shared heritage, it was events in the aftermath of the 1979 Islamic revolution that truly brought both sides closer together.

From the pro-Western days of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to the theocratic rule of today, the last 3 decades have onset a turbulent and frequently contentious era for the Iranian people.

Throughout this time, the Iraqi Kurds, in parallel with inception of the Islamic revolution in Tehran, shared common grievances and had many reasons to confide with Iran, owed at times to their respective isolationism but mainly due to their common Baathist enemy, Saddam Hussein.

Present day relations

Throughout the period between 1991 and 2003, the Iraqi Kurds enjoyed fairly stable and productive relationships with Iran. Put simply, at a time when their fragile autonomy was largely dependent on outsiders, the Iraq Kurds had a natural and heavy reliance on Iranian political and economic support.

The continuation of ties with Iran from the days of the Iran-Iraq war was a vital factor to relative prosperity in the region and in establishing some notion of self-sufficiency, especially with Iraqi Arab adversaries further south tightening a noose around the region.

Throughout 1991-2003, Iran maintained perhaps the best relationships with the PUK, whose administration bloc in this period of time bordered directly with Iran.

As the PDK and PUK jockeyed relentlessly for supremacy in Iraqi Kurdistan, Turkey and Iran became natural actors in the jostle for power and influence.

However, often in this period of time, support from two countries that have traditionally quelled Kurdish nationalist uprisings and ubiquitously feared Kurdish nationalism, would come as a trade-off or as a factor in the battle against their own restive Kurdish populations.

Economic reliance

Of all the neighboring Kurdish populations, Iraqi Kurds and Iranian Kurds have had better access to their respective geographies and generally closer attachment. This has strengthened and encouraged economic ties that are of mutual benefit.

Iran, although hardly taking a soft-stance on any notion of separatism from their own Kurdish population, have never denied Kurdish culture in the same way as Iraq or particularly Turkey.

There is a province called Kurdistan in Iran and Kurds have generally assimilated much better into Iranian society than the Kurds of neighboring countries.

Cross-border trade now equated to billions of dollars and at least 40% of commerce in Iraqi Kurdistan comes from Iran. With talk of inaugurating more border gates, it’s easy to see why Iraqi Kurds look to the Iranian government for future stability and an expansion of their status-quo.

The Iranian need for Iraqi Kurds

It would seem that modern history of Kurdistan since the breakup of the Ottoman Empire has been characterized by trade-offs and use of the influential Iraqi Kurdish position for regional agendas. Often once these alliances were no longer needed the Kurds have been left to suffer. Iranian ties with Kurds have also suffered at times from this regional syndrome.

Take example the strong support of Shah Pahlavi for the Iraqi Kurds in the 1970’s, who at the time posed a predendenced threat to Baghdad as a result of the backing. This support was a direct result of Iraqi and Iranian disagreement over the Shatt al-Arab waterway, and when as part of the Algiers agreement in 1975, the Shah withdrew support for the Kurds it was much like abandoning lambs amidst a pack of wolves.

After Ayatollah Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini returned from exiled in Paris and orchestrated the Islamic revolution in 1979, this left a region comprising mainly of Sunnis, Arabs and secular governments, in shock and fear of been swept by the new whirlwind coming from the Shiite plains of Iran.

Once the deadly and highly-costly Iran-Iraq war began in 1980, Iran’s isolation was firmly placated. The West almost unanimously backed Iraq as did the majority of a highly-skeptical Sunni region.

Iraqi Kurds, fighting persecution and a nationalist legacy of their own in Iraq, were natural Iranian allies against Saddam Hussein at a time when Iran needed all the support it could get against a largely superior foe. As such, the Iraqi Kurds played a key role in the conflict, at times effectively splintering the Iraqi forces.

Ironically, in spite of a Shiite revolution in Iran, the majority of Shiite Arabs in Iraq chose their Arab nationalism over the support of Shiite power of Iran. Such was the deep-hatred of Saddam for the Kurdish “betrayal” that much of the Anfal operations and beyond was designed as retribution for collaboration with his arch-enemy.

Much of the existing relationships between Kurdish leaders of today and figures in the Tehran government were fostered and strengthened in this period of time.

Kurdistan Region Prime Minister Nerchirvan Barzani, on his visit to Tehran in 2008, emphasized the appreciation of the region for Iranian humanitarian support during it war with Saddam.

In recent years Iran has been quick to court the Iraqi Kurds in midst of new realities in Iraq and was the first to open a consulate in the region.

Temperamental big brother

Surrounded by hostility, the Iraqi Kurds have often learnt that you can choose your friends but not your neighbors. Without making the best possible friendships from tough neighbors, the Iraqi Kurdish experiment stands no chance of survival.

Of all the countries, perhaps Iran and the Iraqi Kurds have had the best basis for common alliance. The Iraqi Kurds and Iranians share cultural and historical ties, a similar language and are both non-Arab.

The Iraqi Kurds would do well to maintain productive relationships with an influential power. However, between 1991 and 2003 and particularly since the liberation of Iraq, Iran could often been likened to a temperamental big brother.

If you get on his right side, you will find yourself under warm and comfortable wings, but at the same time you will want to avoid his temperamental side at all costs.

The strong alliance that has developed between the Iraqi Kurds and the U.S in the aftermath of second gulf war, has threatened to alienate Iran.

Iraqi Kurds have found themselves in a tentative position, and are mindful of been caught in middle of the proxy-battle between their two friends. Kurds need the support of Washington and have actively promoted ties, whilst at the same time they do not want to distance or anger Tehran.

The delicate balancing act is one the Iraqi Kurds would do well to maintain. There is a firm belief in the Kurdish region that the U.S. remains the key to long-term protection but at the same time they realise that without an atmosphere of mutual friendship with Iran, they are unable to maintain their economy or any semblance of stability.

The worst scenario for Kurds is to heavily rely upon the U.S. whilst developing uneasy and downbeat ties with Turkey and Iran

The notorious arrests of Iranian personnel by U.S. commandos in Iraqi Kurdistan have highlighted the tough position of the Kurds, seemingly caught in the cross-fire.

The example of angry big brother syndrome was on display with the closure of the important border gates between Iraqi Kurdistan and Iran as a result of Iranian anger over the arrests, effectively serving as an ominous threat to the Kurdistan region not to “bite the hands that feeds it”.

In circumstances, Tehran may not always be the best of friends, but you certainly do no want to make an enemy of a powerful neighbor.

Far from rosy

Iraqi Kurds have already found that their relationship with their “big brother” is far from rosy. The present relations may be warm but the Iraqi Kurds will be weary of maintaining them.

The issue of Iranian Kurdish rebel group, PJAK, has been a constant thorn in recent relations. This has resulted in frequent shelling of the border areas, which to a great extent has been ignored by both Baghdad and the U.S.

Kurds are largely powerless to stop such bombardments of the region. This is only exacerbated by the apparent recent military cooperation between Turkey and Iran. The warming of ties between Ankara and Tehran has been ominous for the Iraqi Kurds, meaning their tight-rope just got thinner.

The carrot and stick approach of their neighbors can be seen by the threat to cool ties unless Iraqi Kurds abandon any notion of support for the respective Kurdish nationalist movement either side of the border.

When situations have called for, the Kurdistan Region has seen that Iran will not think twice to shut its border, causing economic pain for the region.

Even the pre-Saddam days highlighted that Iranian support was not a foregone conclusion.  While the region fought a bitter battle against Ansar al-Islam, finally defeated with the help of U.S. firepower, it was alleged that Tehran afforded support to the leaders of the movement.

Future relationships with Iran

Future relationship of the Iraqi Kurds with Iran may well rest on outside factors. If U.S. diplomacy under Barrack Obama fails to materialize with Iran, the Iraqi Kurds may well find themselves caught in the middle again.

If the battle for influence in the Middle East gather pace or worse the US is forced to strike at the Tehran regime, the Iraqi Kurds may well be pressured into making a painful decision.

On the other hand, if at least theoretically Iran and the U.S. develop stronger diplomatic relations, it remains to be seen how this would affect Iranian tie with the Kurds.

The position of regional pawns for the Iraqi Kurds will unfortunately not disappear all too easily.

This is underpinned by the fact that the Shiite majority in Iraq enjoy strong ties with Tehran. If difficult Kurdish ties continue with the Shiite Arab south, any issues with the Iranians may well propel the Kurds between a rock and a hard place, with only a distant and unwilling U.S. for support.

Iran and the Islamic revolution

To better assess, the Iranian stance at present and the factors that have contributed to the current influence of Tehran, it is important to understand the aspects that have propelled Iran to the existing position in the aftermath of the Islamist revolution of 1979. Many of these elements have contributed to the existing ties between the Kurds and the need of the Iranian government to rely on key local partners in their battle for regional influence.

As a country with geographical advantages, good transport links with central Asia, access to an abundance of oil, sizable coastlines and influence over the Persian Gulf, Iran has long viewed itself as a regional superpower, long before its current ascendancy to dominance.

However, unlike its historical ancestors that forged the forefront of the Persian Empire, modern day Iran has never quite lived up to its potential.

The challenges and drawbacks facing successive Iranian governments, in particular since the onset of the Islamist revolution, are evident.

Iran incorporates a distinct ethnicity in a region dominated by Arabs, and a Shiite state engulfed by Sunni neighbours. Where since 1979 it has been traditionally anti-Western other neighbours have embraced the West.

Divine role in the Middle East

The revolutionary euphoria in the modern era may have began in 1979, with a revolution that allowed Ayatollah Khomeini’s Islamic rule to take stage, however, for centuries, Iranians have had ambition and an almost divine belief that they would lead the region and also the religion of Islam.

Since the Safavids brought Shiite Islam to Persia in the 16th century, Iranians have tried to set themselves apart from their traditional neighbours, and successive kings have attempted to portray themselves as leaders of the Muslim world.

However, this is where the Islamist revolution in Iran has hardly stroked the supportive tone with fellow Muslims. The majority of neighbouring secular Sunni governments, have perceived 1979 as a dangerous Shiite revolution than any great Islamist revolution, and remained suspicious of Shiite goals in the region.

As such one of the greatest problems facing the new government post-1979 was international isolation. Ties with U.S. were almost immediately severed, and have never quite been restored.  Some regional actors and much of the international community feared the consequences of a strong Islamist regime leading to a cooling of ties.

Such was the global pandemonium at events in Iran that perhaps no leader of a country has quite directly influenced the ousting of a U.S. president in the same way as Ayatollah Khomeini. Jimmy Carter, who failed miserably at a gallant rescue of the infamous U.S embassy hostages in Tehran, was widely perceived as humiliated as he was superseded by Ronald Reagan. 

It is no coincidence that resentment and fear of Shiite power culminated in the Iran-Iraq war only a year after the revolution. The general animosity towards Tehran was plain to see as most Sunni neighbours and Western powers supported and armed Iraq.

This sense of hard justice, seclusion and fighting against the odds emboldened the Iranian government and they stubbornly defended the principles of Islamist revolution rather than succumb to pressure from every side. Iran became almost accustomed to fighting their own battles and also batting for their own form of Islam, against what seemed like the rest of the world.

In such a light, Iranians and Iraqi Kurds became natural partners, as they were both non-Arabs, victims of regional Sunni Arab nationalism and international abandonment.

Future relationship of Iran with its neighbours

In a very ironic twist, it was regional turmoil conceived by the contentious policies of their arch-nemesis, the United States, rather than policies set in Tehran that allowed the Iranian government to finally become free from its traditional constrictions and rise up as a power.

In the west, the U.S. took out Iran’s greatest enemy Saddam Hussein, a dictator that launched a devastating war on Iran, and one whom the Iranian people saw as a personification of their common enemies in the region and beyond. Democracy in Iraq, afforded a strong Iranian hand in the new Shiite dominated governments in Iraq, incorporating many parties into power that emerged under the wings of Tehran.

To the east, the U.S. defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan, effectively alongside Saddam removing two of the most dangerous enemies to Iran.

The thirst to undermine the U.S. and influence dealings in the Middle East has certainly sped Iranian ties with Erbil.

With a ‘dangerous’ tag attributed to Iran, contentious nuclear projects and support of Islamist hardliners in the region, neighbours will never embrace Iran with open arms.

The vicious cycle continues with Iran unable to become the regional powerhouse it craves unless it builds strong ties with most of its neighbours and promotes socioeconomic development across its borders.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: PUK Media, Peyamner, Various Misc.