Category Archives: Kurdish Globe

Obama’s pledge to listen instead of dictate bodes well

Leave a reply

While not a “miracle worker”, Obama is set to change the way the Muslim world perceives the US.

The Middle East will prove a Tough Nut to Crack for Obama, But “listening” is a good start

In the time since his widely publicised inauguration in front of million of expectant onlookers from around the world, US President Barack Obama has wasted no time in getting to work.

So lofty is the level of expectation and responsibility placed on his broad shoulders that Obama needs to use every minute to live up to the billing he has received as “global saviour”. 

The Middle East will prove as much of a ubiquitous agenda item as any in Washington, and may well be the platform on which he is measured at the end of his tenure. So keen was Obama to showcase the new determination to engage more actively in the Middle east, that within hours of his appointment as US envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, was half-way across the Atlantic en route to a Middle Eastern tour.

Bush’s imprint on the Middle East

Without a doubt, the era of George W. Bush will forever be symbolised by key failings in the Middle East. Bush’s track record left behind an uncertain region and no significant results, in spite of the democratic projects and peace roadmaps his administration tried so hard to implement.

Some benefitted greatly from Bush’s foreign policy: just ask the much repressed Kurds and Shiites who suffered immensely under decades of barbarian dictatorships in Iraq; however, the overall consensus is that Bush lost the support and respect of the greater region.

One of Obama’s first goals will be to draw a line in the Middle Eastern sand. His eagerness to highlight the birth of a new chapter and all the opportunities that it brings could not make this intention clearer.

Obama does not want to be prejudiced, for the perceived failing of a predecessor, before his work has even begun. In this light, even the staunch foes of the previous regime, are addressed in the most diplomatic and tactful manner.

Under Obama burnt bridges are being restored and there now exists an opportunity for anyone willing to “unclench their fist”.

Obama’s message of hope and friendship

Above all the aspiration, dynamism and guile, Obama is a realist. Long before he ran for presidency, he would have known from his extensive network of advisors, the size and complexity of the task facing him in the Middle East. Obama knew long before his accession to prominence, that unless he worked diligently to alter policies, even the more established relationships in the region could be threatened.

The first public statement on the Middle East by Obama was judged along the same lines as before, but in a recent television address on a prominent Arabic news channel, Obama was able to put his oratorical skills to great use, in the quest to strike a different tone in the region and build new ties with the Muslim world.

Leaving Iraq responsibly

In many ways, Iraq was Bush’s Achilles heel and became the cornerstone of Obama’s election campaign. In spite of the early promise, and almost six years of a costly occupation, Iraq continued to be a vicious thorn in the side of the Bush administration.

Obama never supported the war from the outset, was against the troop surge in 2007, and pledged to withdraw troops within 16 months of taking oath.

A security agreement took affect on January 1, 2009, effectively handing over full sovereignty to the Iraqi government and setting a timetable for withdrawal. However, the task of withdrawing thousands US troops is only half the battle in Iraq. Obama requires a long-term vision for Iraq and a strategic understanding with Iraq as well as neighbouring countries. The troops may ultimately leave but this does not always mean the headache will go.

Iraq has come a long way in the past couple of years, especially in respect to security. But with so much attention being paid to the US exit strategy, not much emphasis has been placed on the exit strategy of the Iraqis themselves.

The US would do well to leave “responsibly”. Nonetheless, much in the same way as the word “success” in reference to Iraq provided a rather ambiguous term for the previous administration, leaving Iraq in “reasonable shape” may prove to be similarly ambiguous.

Key long-term problems remain unresolved in Iraq, and this is one battle over which, in practice,  the US may have little sway. It is down to the Iraqis to compromise and seek greater national reconciliation, but if all sides do not embrace democratic conventions and companionship in the same manner, there is little the US can do.

Key spanners in the Iraqi works

Iraq is a case in point that illustrates that imposing ideals on a population, even those taking for granted in the West, will never work if those same ideals are not embraced by that population – however logical they may seem to a Western onlooker.

More importantly, the West needs to allow time for its ideals to take effect, without supervision and forceful steering, and must appreciate that the result or outcomes are not always going to be as hoped.

The Iraqi transitional road to democracy is as uncertain as ever. Many key issues continue to blight the national horizon, but none more so than the unwillingness of some sides to reach true compromise.

To his credit, Obama has been insistent on thorough planning. This “planning” must finally show a realisation that objectives in Iraq must be viewed in the long-term and not just in short-term success measures, which will allow the US a much needed and credible escape route.

Iraq represents a fragmented society and classic diplomacy, unfortunately, is not always their option of choice when it comes to bridging historic ethnic and sectarian differences.

Whether Obama adopts the much discussed plan by his now vice president Joe Biden, to divide Iraq into three semi-autonomous federal entities, remains unclear, but what is certain is that it will take the pioneering mindset of someone like Biden with a policy that is genuinely out of the box, to prevent further bloodshed in Iraq, let alone preserve its long-term unity.

Outgoing US ambassador Ryan Crocker ominously warned Obama about the challenges that lay ahead in Iraq and the difficulty in pinning timescales for their resolution.

Key milestones in Iraq

In many ways, 2009 will be a decisive year for Iraq and a litmus test for the readiness of Iraqis to go it “alone”. Events in the next six months may well shape events in years to come.

In most of the country voting took place on January 31, to appoint provincial councils with parliamentary balloting also set to be concluded by the end of 2009.

It remains to be seen whether Iraq will be better leveraged and balanced on the national stage as a result of these elections.

Obama administration will need show new vigour and flexibility as the same rigid mentality of the previous regime will prove counter-productive.

Common mistrust among politicians and a simmering war of words between Kurdistan Regional Government and Baghdad, show that the appetite for true reconciliation and a common vision will remain elusive for some time to come, regardless of the number of elections held.

Listen rather than dictate

A real welcome to all in the Middle East was Obama’s pledge to listen rather than dictate. This may yet prove to Obama’s biggest strength. By planning and analysing the facts, the US can slowly reach out to the predominantly Muslim population of the Middle East. The new administration must steer away from the perception that the US is anti-Islamic.

Perhaps, this is an underlying reason why peace between Israelis and the Palestinians under Bush fast became a mirage. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and prospective wars touted for so long in Syria and particularly Iran, only encouraged Islamist sceptics who long-alleged an anti-Islamic agenda and the ambition of the US to shape the Middle East according to colonial mindsets and a thirst for oil.

The desire for an open diplomatic approach stressed by Obama was evident as he emphasised that Israelis and Palestinians will have to make some tough decisions and the US could not dictate proceedings.

The US appears intent on looking at the bigger picture when resolving matters in the Middle East. Clearly, from Iraq to Palestine, one can not foster long-term prosperity without appreciating the ripple affects and the influence that neighbouring countries often induce.

Obama implied that in the future the US would have to take into account all the factors involved, this was a clear dig at Bush and the chaos that ensued in the aftermath of Iraq’s liberation.

Hoping for a miracle

Although, a new platform of optimism is badly needed in the region, Obama is not a miracle worker. No guarantees can be provided that decade’s long conflicts and disputes, so elusive to many US presidents, can be fixed by injections of pragmatism alone.

There is always room for manoeuvre in foreign policy, but the fundamental blueprints of US policy, such as its historical support of Israel can not be shifted all too easily.

What is clear is that with Obama’s new thinking and an active approach, he may get closer than any former president in building new peaceful ties in the region and setting a genuine stage for much needed progress.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

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

Gaza’s Agony Continues

Leave a reply

The depth of destruction in Gaza slowly unfolds, but for the people of the impoverished strip, more agony lies ahead. 

Palestinians in the Gaza strip were left to pick up the pieces once more after a deadly Israeli offensive lasting 22 days finally came to an end, almost in ironic sync with the inauguration of Barack Obama as the new US President.

An Israeli unilateral ceasefire, the product of much diplomatic effort by Western leaders and regional powers, was later followed by a week-long Hamas ceasefire, tentatively ending a conflict that made the lives of 1.5 million in the Gaza Strip a living hell.

Reflecting on the devastation

As Israeli troops and tanks gradually left the impoverished strip of land, the full scale of the devastation resulting from daily air strikes and Israeli artillery assaults started to unfold.

With bulldozers slowly ploughing through the debris of battle, it was the unfortunate population of Gaza, of whom almost two-thirds remain registered with the UN as refugees that were once again the victims of decades of bitterness and colonial legacies.

Relative peace was ended, when Hamas refused to renew an edgy six-month ceasefire with the Israeli government towards the end of 2008. As persistent rocket-fire ensued, Israeli launched the latest offensive under the banner of protecting their civilians.

With further destruction to an already embattled landscape,    and historic and deep-rooted animosity between Hamas and Israel, the future for Gaza remains bleak.

Israeli left the Gaza Strip in 2005, but ubiquitous rocket-fire into southern Israel has meant that deadly Israeli retaliatory air strikes have been common. In one of the most densely populated areas in the world, often it is civilian bloodshed and heartache that ensues, than any real diminishment of Hamas’s ability to launch rocket fire.

Humanitarian crisis

As Israeli eased its operations, much needed food and medical supplies began to trickle thorough the border crossings. Figures indicate that over a third of the population have been without water since the offensive began, with many without any power.

In addition to the rubble dotting the landscape, thousands of people remain homeless. According to estimates from Gaza, over 22,000 buildings have been damaged or destroyed amounting to billions in reparation.

What chance for peace?

The concept of peace for two sides so contrasting in ideology is a difficult undertaking. Hamas, who have also been at deadly logger-heads with their arch-rivals Fatah, refuse to recognise Israel and remain committed at seeing the return of all Palestinian lands from their “occupiers”.

Maintaining a short-term truce appears a difficult enough task, let alone lasting peace between both sides. For Israel, the dilemma is obvious, how do you appease patriotic ranks in government to negotiate with an enemy, who remains intent on seeing your collapse?

As much as the Hamas movement does not encapsulate the views of all Palestinians, particularly in the Gaza strip, where an already mentally-scarred nation suffers more agony, it is hard not to alienate the greater population away from seeking peaceful ties.

With each dying civilian, the gulf to peace only increases. Israel seeks to ensure security which it has every right to enjoy, but what sympathy can be granted if hundreds of other civilians perish in the quest of protecting their own. One can blame Hamas for endangering their own population, but try telling that to the people of Gaza who have lost their homes and lack basic commodities.

Yet a key constraint remains to any peace. Until Palestinians can find peace with each other there is no chance of any peace with the Jewish state. However, a unity government appears a distant possibility for now with any elections in the short-term highly unlikely.

International reaction

Most Western powers, including some regional governments, remained supportive of Israel’s security concerns and motives for launching the offensives against a regime that many still deem as a terrorist organisation.

However, broad dismay at the humanitarian catastrophe that enveloped was difficult to veil. Israel’s heavy handed tactics, resulting in the death of 1,300 Palestinians, was hard to justify as much as the continued nuisance of rocket-fire from Palestinian territory had placed enormous pressure on the Israeli government to react.

Israeli unilateral ceasefire comes on the back of a firm commitment by leading powers to take more action to prevent arms-smuggling from Egypt into the hands of militants. However, Hamas has so far remained defiant in its continued pursuit of arms and the key question remains as to who will police the southern border of Gaza with Egypt.

Even the more favoured and pro-Western Fatah movement led by Mahmoud Abbas that currently control the Western bank, were not wholeheartedly sympathetic to the consequences of perceived Hamas provocation that spurred the onslaught of Israeli anger.

The great differences between Arab neighbours were in open view at the recent Arab summit, further highlighting the complexities in resolving the Palestinian question. Even Arab countries fail to address the current issues with any sense of unity.

US presidential card

It is hard to see the timing of the disproportionate Israeli onslaught as coincidental. Within the final weeks of President George W. Bush’s controversial tenure at the helm, Israel hit back at a more ferocious rate to greatly-weaken the military threat posed by Hamas under the umbrella of the strong support offered by the current Bush administration.

The controversial Israeli offensive meant that even the fading days of Bush’s rule, were clouded in debate. Intriguingly, the Israeli pull-out started just days before Obama’s inauguration as president.

It remains to be seen whether the new U.S. president, would afford the Israeli government the same underlying backing but certainly ahead of their own elections, Israeli leaders would want to build a solid “start” with the new US regime.

What remains certain, is that Obama will inherit as many challenges and obstacles to Middle Eastern peace as his predecessors, who have all desperately tried to foster the prospect of a viable two-state solution.

As long as any two sides remain worlds apart in viewpoints and persist with the same kind of deep-rooted hatred for one-another, a dozen more US presidents, would continue to inherit the same instruments of instability and terror.

Propaganda war

For both the Israeli government and Hamas, the propaganda war bore as much significance as the deadly war itself.

Both sides have toyed with statistics and used international sentiment to their advantage.  Regardless, of the terms of peace or length of confrontation, both sides would always declare a popular victory against the other.

It remains to be seen, how Israelis would react to any perceived further aggression by Hamas. Likewise it is unclear how Hamas would react if they felt that the terms of their own indefinite ceasefire was breached.

In truth arms-smuggling in Gaza is next to impossible to stop and rocket-fire, however varying in intensity and frequency, will continue on Israel.

In many ways, there is a feeling of a temporary halt to the fighting, in light of the dire humanitarian situation and the immense pressure to ease the suffering of the people. All the seeds for a future conflict remain very in much in position.

Gaza fenced in

The long-term Israeli economic embargo on the Gaza strip aimed at punishing the Islamist regime and weaken their resolve will only ever inflict further pain on ordinary civilians.

With people limited in their movement and stuck between a much-maligned Hamas and an unwavering “neighbour”, the people of Gaza are in more ways than one trapped within their own lands.

If Israeli seeks to build ties, then it must be a lot more attentive to civilian damage and suffering in their response to any aggression, and ease any economic blockades thereafter.

The ordinary people of Gaza can only be distanced, when they witness their neighbourhood in rubbles, their hospitals full of wounded and their social infrastructure in tatters. Israeli must entice the Palestinian people away from extremism and not enflame passions and hatred further.

Israeli elections

In Israel, ahead of crucial elections on February 10th, the popularity of the offensives raised the prospects of key individuals at the heart of the recent military offensive to revel at the polls.

However, in spite of certain ministries gaining in popularity, opinion polls indicate a win for right-wing opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu. Somewhat ironically, it was Netanyahu who opposed Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 after almost four decades of occupation, after insisting that Palestinian hardliners would assume any power vacuum that would ensue from any pullout.

The long-term strategy to deal with their Gaza problem remains very much to be seen.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.

2008 – A defining year on many fronts, serving as indicator of things to come in years to come

Leave a reply

As we embark on the New Year ahead and reflect on the year gone by, many key influential events throughout 2008, serve to shape the international agenda over the coming 12 months and beyond.

2008 proved a contentious, at times tumultuous and certainly anxiety-driven year throughout the economic, political and social landscape.

Perhaps, most defining of all events throughout this year, threatening to set the pattern for years to come is the financial crisis that has come to dominate many a domestic agenda and has ripped through the global platform at a frantic pace.

The onset of the infamous credit crunch in the US had a ripple affect throughout Europe, the Far East and emerging economies. Brewing fear soon turned to panic amongst many of the world’s largest financial institutions and ultimately the dreaded economic recession that so many governments battled to avoid.

The turn of fortunes on the financial world was dramatic. With a matter of months, oil prices running at record prices of over $140 a barrel plunged to around the $40 a barrel mark. Stock markets around the world tumbled on fears of a greater global recession, with the economic output of many countries rapidly declining.

2009 threatens to be a bleak year for the world economy, and unfortunately no country can escape from this reality. Rising unemployment and a lack of credit, underline a financial crisis unseen since the devastating 1930’s great depression. That same crisis, that accelerated fascists such as Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini to the world stage, was ironically only ended with the onset of the Second World War.

The moral of the story is clear. Without an affective economic strategy to battle the financial perils currently experienced, economic troubles could soon see drastic political casualties. How will European countries, such as the UK, the subject of immense immigration in recent years, react when jobs are scarce and “foreigners” compete for all types of jobs and depleted social services?

With the onset of globalisation and an exponentially smaller world, a problem in one part of the world, be it economic or political, has grave consequences throughout continents. Economies and in many ways the foreign policies of key allies, have become entangled. As we have seen in 2008, there is no such thing as a distance crisis. A war, political crisis, insurgency or financial turmoil on the backdoor of one, will almost certainly arrive on the door step of another.

Contention in the Middle East

Middle East has ubiquitously operated as the zenith of transgression and hostility in recent history, and 2008 was no different.

The Arab-Israeli peace that George W. Bush so badly craves before his tenure at the helm comes to an end in early 2009 never came and the Palestinians and Israelis appear as distant as ever from reaching elusive and ultimately lasting peace.

Washington has been quick to point out that key steps have been laid on the Middle Eastern roadmap. However, in reality the situation often takes one step forward and two steps back. When two sides, like Hamas and the Israeli government, have such a gulf of views in between, how can peace ever materialise?

In truth, Israeli feels as threatened as ever. Surrounded by Arab hostility, growing nuclear capabilities in Iran and a new guerrilla type of warfare symbolised by Hamas and particularly an ever-powerful Hezbollah and not forgetting a dramatically higher birth-rate of its disgruntled Arab-Israeli population, it feels the need to strike back more than ever, not just safeguard its present but its very own existence. It remains to be seen if the government of Barrack Obama will afford the same level of direct support as the Bush administration to the Jewish state.

The tentative situation was best summarised, with the recent eruption of violence in the Gaza Strip, with the homes of many in the Gaza Strip shattered along with the peace process itself.

The controversial Iranian government remained under the spotlight, with mounting international pressure on ending Iran’s nuclear programmes resulting in little change to the hard-line policies or stance of the Iranian president. Iran has often been accused of supporting rogue elements in Iraq and Lebanon and has undoubtedly a strong influential hand with their fellow Shiites in power in Baghdad. Iran will continue to be a thorn on the international stage in 2009, and it remains to be seen if US diplomatic efforts will bear any fruit.

Iraq on the surface has witnessed tremendous security gains in 2008 and has signed a new strategic pact with the US that will define relationships from the beginning of 2009. Iraq benefitted greatly from oil windfalls in 2008, but with oil revenues down so drastically, Iraq will now fight an economic crisis as well as a battle on the political front. Many issues that was hoped to have been resolved this year and bring the country closer together, have evaporated all too soon.

Unsurprisingly the referendum scheduled for Kirkuk in July was never held and debate remains rife on many aspects of the constitution including a national hydrocarbon law and clarity over federalism and other stipulations defining the blue-print of the country. 2009, with the onset of provincial elections and the return of full sovereignty promises to deliver much, however if progress on the ground is anything like this year, the government will flatter to deceive.

Instability and disparity still engulf Iraq and none more so than Turkish offensives in Kurdistan Region, where most of this year has been characterised by Turkish bombings and even a mass land invasion in February. Such events have continuously highlighted that no amount of superior weaponry is an adequate substitute for tackling the root of your problems and stretching an arm to your crucial neighbours, as difficult as breaking historical taboos may prove.

Crisis in the Caucasus

Not in many decades, has Russia been placed under such direct international spotlight. With tentative strategic divisions amongst former soviet republics, Russia found itself fighting for regional supremacy and battling literally for influence, when they invaded South Ossetia and Abkhazia, becoming embroiled in a much-condemned war with Georgia, which briefly resulted in the isolation of Russia on the global stage and threatened to damage relations with NATO.

Russia has shown this year, that it will not stand by and become by-passed in political and military standing by NATO, especially in areas it still determines as its historical sphere of influence.  Russia’s determination to wave its fist in the year in the defence of its strategic interests was highly ominous. With debates still lingering over break-away regions of Georgia, the notorious deployment US ‘star wars’ missile systems in Eastern Europe and the quest of some former soviet republics to evade Russian grasp under the confinement of NATO, 2008 may prove a very prominent turning-point with the once world super power and its Cold War nemesis.

Events in South Ossetia, Abkhazia and other separatist regions throughout the world were hardly helped with Kosovo been granted independence in spite of fierce opposition from Russia and Serbia. The ability of the Kosovan’s to attain nationhood with such broad international support has now certainly set precedence for many years to come.

The siege of Mumbai

Events this past year in south Asia, threatened to set the stage for yet another war in 2009. The abrasive siege of Mumbai by a group of hard-line terrorists, allegedly from Pakistan, stole the worlds gaze and shocked the Indian subcontinent. Rarely have such a small group of determined but highly trained terrorists, been able to impose such long-term panic and bloodshed in a major international city. Most terrorists or gunmen aim to maximise damage in a very defined period of time and in a confined area, these groups of young gunmen however, battled hundreds of elite Indian security forces for the best part of 3 days, killing many civilians and leaving a mental-scars on the population.

With the Indian government under intense pressure to react by an angry and stunned population, demands of concessions from their Pakistani counterparts may not bear any fruit but the seed of future conflict.

The attacks in India have demonstrated that one bold attack in one location has drastic ramifications across the world. This was underlined as leading figures from US, Europe and other global powers flocked to avert a highly damaging escalation between nuclear armed neighbours.

The need for unified action

The need for unified international responses could not be more pertinent than at the current time. Global hotspots threaten to entice neighbouring countries into greater conflict. US forces remain stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the battle for global stability and peace has just begun.

Many battles and crisis in Africa continue to evade the world’s attention. Domestic tensions, as well as a number of neighbours on the brink of war, threaten to devastate the African population, at the time when they are most vulnerable.

The West would do well to avoid full-focus on wars and crisis where it has a direct interest and start to look at the bigger picture. The focus on tackling world poverty must not stop, because powerful nations have bigger economic and political fish on their plate.

There is greater onus than ever on the UN to take action to prevent world poverty, promote peace and enforce democratic values.

Gone are the days when the world could choose to ignore the plight of innocent people or observe passively as nations suffered due to strategic ploys of powers with old-fashioned colonial mindsets. The world has witnessed, that a seed of conflict or dispute sown one year, should not be forgotten until it blooms and causes greater carnage in another year.

A breath of fresh

2008 was a negative year in many ways, and 2009 may well continue along that line. However, with the onset of the global economic crisis, growing friction in key parts of the world and general anxiety on the world stage, Barrack Obama, the President-elect of US, was in many ways not just a symbol of change and aspiration for the US but the personification of hope for the greater international community.

Immense pressure may be placed on the already broad shoulders of Obama, but the world in general needs a reminder that adversity can be overcome by sheer determination, belief and working together. For prosperity on the global stage, one can ill-afford to go alone but must strive forward in unity and with shared goals, values and aspirations for sake of greater peace and prosperity.

There is no better example of working together on fulfilling a shared vision of a brighter future, than the need to tackle environmental issues such as climate change with a unified stance.

After all, compounded by a global population that could easily double in the next 50 years, meaning more mouths to feed and more competition for natural resources, if mankind is unable resolve such a fundamental issue that threatens to change our very existence, then no amount of battling on economic and political fronts today may ever really matter tomorrow.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.

Can the US Really be Blamed for Every Iraqi Misfortune?

Leave a reply

Bush Departs From Iraq Amidst Controversy Much the Same Way as He Entered in 2003, but can the US really be blamed for every Iraqi mishap?

Shoe-throwing debacle guarantees that Bush’s aim of ending his Iraqi excursions on a high are thwarted, but would the same journalist have dared to throw a shoe at Saddam?

The White House has been on somewhat of a publicity drive in recent weeks, as George W. Bush’s tenure at the presidential helm comes to an end. Bush and his aides have tried hard to promote a positive portrayal of his period in charge and point to successes from his time in high command, particularly regarding the Middle East.

However, hopes for a productive and glitch-free farewell visit to Iraq, targeted to boost ratings and end undoubtedly his most contentious flash point as president on a high, were all but dashed.

Bush’s grand finale in Iraq was tainted with much publicity and media attention, but for all the wrong reasons as the now infamous shoe-throwing incident at a press conference with Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, dampened all chances of a subtle but constructive departing from the Middle Eastern plains.

However, Bush can be far for blamed for every note of discontent arising out of Iraq or indeed the Middle East, and conclusive assessments of his time as president must be made in context of the greater historical handicaps that have scarred the Iraqi horizon.

Contentious Times

Bush’s legacy in Iraq can perhaps be best summarised by one of his last speeches in Iraq, warning his forces and Iraqi comrades that “the war is not over”.

This statement is all the remarkable and speaks volumes of the “new” Iraq, when compared to the bold announcement he made on 1st May 2003, just weeks after Saddam Hussein was dramatically ousted from power that “major combat operations have ended”.

Almost six-years since the highly-contentious invasion of Iraq, what was hoped to usher a new era of prosperity and democracy, to serve as a beacon of light for the greater Middle East, was swiftly bogged down with bloodshed, sectarian terror, political squabbling and ubiquitous obstacles on the Iraqi transitional road to democracy.

While there were initial high-hopes in 2003 that focus could now be turned to rebuilding a shattered country after years of war, brutal dictatorship and economic sanctions and start the process of building a stable society, the Iraqi dream turned into a reoccurring nightmare.

However, to blame the Americans for every mishap in Iraq is simply misleading and a distraction from other pertinent facts on the ground. Who can forget decades of barbarian rule under a cold-hearted dictator who launched wars on its neighbours and even chemically-bombed its Kurdish civilians in broad-daylight?

Any critic, no matter his social background or political affiliation, who can condone the murder of thousands of innocent people, where mass graves are still been uncovered today, and the destruction of villages, is inhumane. In reality, the real weapon of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein, was disposed.

Lack of Plan B

As events over the past number of years have hardly disguised, it is no secret that US policy to deal with the new dawn in Iraq was indecisive, incoherent and simply lacked practical assessment. The decision to disband the Iraqi army and the expectation that brief post-liberation euphoria would turn into mass support for a concept that has been practiced for hundreds of years in the West but unseen in Iraq, was out of touch and lacked du-diligence one would come to expect from the world’s only superpower.

Simply put, US saw their Iraqi dream shatter to pieces, yet seemingly had no alternate plans to the expectation that they would be met with open arms by most of the Iraqi public. It took the US almost 4 years with the onset of the successful surge strategy, to stop fire-fighting and finally try to prevent the fires from starting.

Reconstruction efforts have been greatly hampered with unemployment, lack of civil infrastructure and medical facilities still common place. However, reconstruction in Iraq, particularly in the aftermath of the chaos that ensued, was like rebuilding your house in the middle of a tornado.

The damning verdict on reconstruction was emphasised by a leaked government report in the US, detailing the failures to apply reconstruction funds into real physical achievements, as it struggled to rebuild even what had been devastated by the war itself.

Harvesting the Seeds Sown Before

For all the popular opinion amongst some Iraqi and Western commentators, every misfortune or problem currently experienced by Iraq is not purely down to the US. 

The key problems engulfing Iraq emanate from its artificial creation in the aftermath of the First World War. Iraq was composed of three disparate former Ottoman provinces that was essentially stitched together by Britain and her allies, and then “glued” by dictatorships.

It is true that the US lifted a can of worms in an unceremonious manner, however, Iraq would have come to a boil, sooner or later, regardless of US intervention. Americans knew that challenges lay ahead of the new Iraq, but they simply did not know the extent of the challenge that would cost them billions of dollars, see them commit thousands of soldiers and shatter their foreign policy image.

Iraqi politicians have squabbled intensively and failed to pass key legislation, national reconciliation continues to prove elusive and sectarian violence, despite drastic security improvements, remains a real threat. Surely, all these factors attributable to Iraqis can not all become pinned on the US?

Signing of Security Pact

Bush fourth visit to Iraq was designed to underline strong ties between the US and Iraq, that was to be symbolised by the signing of the SOFA agreement.

On previous visits, Bush’s visits were short and surrounded by tight security, owing much to the volatile atmosphere on the ground in recent years. This visit was undertaken with ‘relative’ security, as Bush met with key Iraqi leaders and US commanders inside the fortified green zone.

By Bush’s own admission, the Iraqi project had been “longer and more costly than expected”, but despite openly expressing his regret at failed intelligence prior to the invasion, he firmly believed his decision to invade was justified.

With only weeks remaining before President-elect Barack Obama takes charge, many have accused of Bush of tying the hands of the next administration with his policies in Iraq. Obama, inheriting many issues in Iraq and across the Middle East, is now expected to oversee what is hoped to be the final chapter of the US adventure in Iraq, the departure of the estimated 150,000 US forces within the next few years.

Iraqi politicians were quick to praise Bush’s role, with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, hailing the US for an Iraq that was now “dramatically freer, dramatically safer and dramatically better”.

As Bush came “to herald the passage” of the new accord, much debate and controversy still lingers around the security agreement. Pasted after months of protracted and tense negotiations, the deal has left a bitter taste in the mouths of many sceptical Iraqis.

For these Iraqis, the pact remains unclear with regards to certain stipulations and they remain unconvinced that US would leave by the end of 2011 as agreed. In tune with divisions amongst the Iraqi landscape, for others Bush has abandoned his promise to the stay the course.

The Iraq Left behind

Iraq may have become Bush’s achilles heel, but he at least he narrowly averted all-out disaster. Security is improving and hopes remain for greater political alignment next year with the provincial elections in Iraq.

It is easy to look at Iraq as all doom and gloom but productive progress, although at times at a snail-pace, has been made since 2003, particularly with the first elections in decades, the onset of a national constitution and the building of a new security force.

However, gains have been all too often become quickly overshadowed and the Iraqi project is far from implemented and certainly far from over. Key obstacles continue to blight the Iraqi divide, with frequent disputes between Baghdad and the Kurdistan Regional Government, debate over interpretation and amendments to the constitution, a lack of a national hydrocarbon law and many flash points, such the hotly contested dispute over oil-rich Kirkuk, have simply been delayed and too often brushed under the political rug, for the perception of greater political progress.

For one, Sunni Awakening councils, the ironic saving grace of Bush after the same groups wrecked havoc on US dreams, continue to represent a grave threat if not enticed by Baghdad into the political sphere.

In summary, Kurds, Sunni and Shiites continue to agree to disagree, with the tug-of-war for the new Iraq just heating up, taking the argument back a full circle that problems experienced today in Iraq, have had the same root cause since its inception all those decades ago. However, where Iraqi troubles and lack of unity could be masked in the past, the US has ensured that there is no hiding away from it now.

Without building a real foundation to the take the ‘whole’ of Iraq forward, gains in Iraq will always be tentative and life will always remain on the edge.

Shoe-throwing shame

No matter how passionate sentiments may get, the act of petulance demonstrated by the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at Bush and shouted insults in Arabic, is unacceptable.

Especially, in the ‘new’ Iraq, Iraqis have every right to their opinion and US can seldom disagree, after all it was one of the defining reasons for the invasion. However, shoe-throwing in such circumstances is a step that does not do the image of the Iraqi public or Iraqi media a great deal of good. It will only raises perception that some Iraqis remain confined to uncivilised mannerism, especially ethics one comes to expect from a professional national press.

Indeed, Al-Baghdadiyah TV urged authorities to release the detained journalist as he was only practicing ideals that the US introduced. Such statements speak volumes about some mentalities that prevail and the huge strides that Iraq still has to make.

Every Iraq has a right to an opinion and none more so than a journalist but would the same journalist have even dared to utter a word against Saddam if he was performing a speech, let alone throw his shoe? Failing that, why didn’t the journalist throw one shoe at Bush for the suffering he has afflicted on Iraq and one at al-Maliki for his many failings at serving the Iraqi people?

Undoubtedly, the incident would have been met with jubilation in some circles, but such abrasive action in the knowledge that it was Bush’s last speech in Iraq and under the heavy eyes of the world, left little room for coincidence.

Bush and the US are by no means perfect, but the time to blame the West for each and everything is outdated and delusional.

If Iraqis can not get their act together for greater national progression, then no magic wand of Bush or anyone else could ever have done the trick.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

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

The Siege of Mumbai

Leave a reply

Debris Starts to Settle After Siege of Mumbai, But Fallout Has Just Begun

As a shocked Indian nation recovers from the numbness of the extraordinary events over the past week, tensions have been inevitably stoked with its long-term nemesis and nuclear rival, Pakistan. As Indian government officials are under heavy pressure to carry out an urgent and decisive post-mortem, frantic diplomatic efforts, spearheaded by the US, have tried to avert further escalation in the crisis.

The nature of the terrorist attacks that occurred last week in India’s bustling financial capital, Mumbai, remarkably spanning sixty bloody hours, shocked not only the local population but stole the world’s attention.

Suicide attacks and the upsurge of terrorism is not a new phenomenon on the global stage, let alone the Indian subcontinent, however the abrasive and deadly manner in which a group of determined youths could wreck such great havoc with relative precision, was hard not to bring a chill down the spine of any on-looking government.

It served as a stark reminder, that even a highly-equipped security force is no match for prepared and persistent masterminds. It only emphasises the importance that no government can rest on their laurels in their battle against terrorism, and that the most affective form of counter-terrorism is not cutting the branch when a lethal episode comes to fruit, but striking the root while time permits.

Mumbai under siege

The bloody attacks began when ten seemingly well-trained and well-coordinated gunmen concurrently attacked several iconic sites across Mumbai. The deadly nature of the attacks and the area of coverage initially raised suspicion that there were at least a couple of dozen gunmen involved.

The first attack was thought to have started at the Chhatrapati Shivaji railway station at around 21:00 on 26th November 2008. What was considered as a typical fleet form of terror, only ended on the morning of Saturday November 29th, after bringing the city to a virtual standstill.

The targets involved symbolic tourist locations and crowded public areas across Mumbai, including Café Leopold, Oberoi-Trident hotel, Taj Mahal Palace hotel and even a hospital, amongst other targets.

The siege on both luxury hotels was particularly brutal, with burned-out corridors, blood-stained walls and devastated hotel rooms, just a tip of the cold-hearted terror that ensued.

Organised chaos

The attacks were clearly designed to maximise international coverage and send a jolt of fear to the global audience using the immense media attention that would naturally follow.

Whilst India, particularly in recent months, is not a new to suicide attacks, the tactics deployed by the gunmen caught India’s security forces off-guard.

Most terrorist attacks seemingly involve suicide missions, designed to carry out the maximum amount of damage within a defined period of time and space using timed explosive devices. However, the use of frontal assault tactics, a customary depiction of insurgency at more military specific areas, brought fear of a new dawn of urban terrorism in India.

Indian elite commandos, army and policy force desperately tried to end the siege in many hours of fierce gun battles. Remarkably, it appears that the gunmen had been equipped for a siege lasting many days and even intended on retuning to “base” after the attacks using the same inbound route.

Much of the shocked local population saw the unravelling events as a declaration of war on India. The nature and method of carnage, was comparable by many to the attacks of 9/11 in New York in 2001.

The group’s reign of indiscriminative terror left 188 dead, hundreds more injured and a trail of trauma that will long-live in the memory.

A nation left with many a question

As the debris of the carnage still settles, a shell-shocked population has demanded answers from the Indian government.

Many have accused the security forces of negligence and have pointed the finger firmly on the failings of Indian intelligence. The inefficiency of intelligence was further compounded with US security officials claiming that they had sent strong warnings of an upcoming naval attack. Furthermore, vital communication intercepted many weeks before, pointed to likely plots against the luxury hotels targeted in the attacks.

Security forces were widely criticised for their response times and were considered as inept to confront a bold group of armed youths.

The gunmen are believed to have started their journey on 13th November after hijacking a fishing trawler. The source of their journey is still unknown, although heavy suspicion has pointed to the Pakistani port city of Karachi.

The manner in which the gunmen were not intercepted on their journey for a number of days and were able to plan their attacks uninterrupted, added to anger amongst residents.

However, more pressing questions remain and the Indian government is under fierce pressure to provide the answers. The execution of the attacks and the weaponry used, point to a high-level of training. Training, planning and funding of these attacks would have likely occurred over many months if not years. Furthermore, the gunmen had in all probability support of local cells in coordinating such attacks.

The gunmen employed the so-called “fidayeen” technique, witnessed in recent years in Indian-administered Kashmir. However, after thawing of ties between India and Pakistan, there has been a relative if not untenable calm. The gunmen are strongly-believed to belong to the Kashmiri terrorist organisation, Lashkar-e Toiba and hail in all likelihood from neighbouring Pakistan.

All ten gunmen were thought to be in their early twenties. As nine of the ten gunmen were killed, particular significance lies on the account of the only captured gunmen, Azam Amir Qasab, now the investigators main hope of unravelling the network that orchestrated the madness.

Indian retaliation

Much in the same way as the abrasive attacks on the World Trade Centre in 2001 pressured the US into ‘instinctive’ action, India politicians, due to the wide-spread public anger and global attention, are inclined to respond in a determined manner.

The Indian government immediately issued strongly worded statements to their Pakistani counterparts, with Indian leaders vowing to respond in the strongest possible way.

After normality slowly returned to Mumbai, international fear has turned to a souring of ties between India and Pakistan as the fallout continues. War between the two nations is not new, and with both governments at ubiquitous loggerheads, it does not take much to diminish the current fragile stability between both sides.

Growing public pressure and the evident security failings have rocked India’s ruling Congress Party coalition, leading to some high-scale resignations and accusations of inadequacies from opposition parties.

Although the Indian government is likely to show resolve in their response owed mainly to fervent international pressure, Pakistan will not be expected to ‘get away’ lightly.

As a sign of India’s intent to win minimal concessions from the Pakistani government in the aftermath of the attacks, it is fully expectant that Pakistani diplomatic efforts will be matched with a show of faith.

For India, this sign of good faith, has come in the request for Pakistan to hand over twenty of its most wanted men, with India seemingly leaving little room for compromise in this request as part of their diplomatic initiative.

The seriousness of the growing crisis was illustrated with key political figures such as U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa, jetting in to mediate and urge calm and caution. The heat is certainly on Pakistan, and not the mourning nation of India, as global leaders pressure the Islamabad government to back up strong rhetoric with transparent and determined action.

Events indicate that there is much more to give in this debacle and although serenity may be restored in India financial capital, the fallout may have just started.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.

Iraqi Cabinet Approves Security Pact with US

Leave a reply

All smiles in public, as agreement mark an end to a sour chapter in relations.

Almost one year after the signing of a declaration of principles between US President George Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, governing long-term cooperation and friendship between the two countries, the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) was finally passed by Iraq’s Cabinet.

The draft agreement, overwhelmingly endorsed by Cabinet members, was later signed by Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari and U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker, in a showcase ceremony, aimed at emphasising a common bond and vision between both sides.

The final draft, encompassing a series of amendments requested at the end of October by Iraqi government, ended months of protracted and at times tense negotiations, that was fast becoming a thorn for both allies. More critically the belated signing of the pact avoided a nightmare scenario for both sides.

The preceding draft, originally earmarked for approval by Iraqi politicians in October, was perceived by key figures in both administrations as the final text to be voted on by Iraqi parliament. That draft was already the subject of much dilution, owed mainly to Iraqi anxiety around sovereignty and the level of legal immunity afforded to US forces.

On the back of broad-endorsement by the Iraqi Cabinet, the draft is widely expected to win the necessary number of votes in Iraq’s parliament, which is expected to vote next week, marking the last step in negotiations.

However, as Iraqis celebrated the end of an era, the reality of the obstacles that lay ahead could not be better demonstrated than the deadly terrorist bombings that coincided with Iraqi approval.

Sweet end to a bitter debacle?

In many ways, the signing of the pact marked a sweet end for both sides, of what was fast become a bitter debacle.

The target date for the signing of the Sofa agreement was the end of July, however in spite of negotiations spanning much of 2008, agreement proved elusive and for a while unlikely before the end of this year.

The agreement was essentially perceived as a pact on the withdrawal of US forces by the Iraqi government. The US had long resisted setting a firm timetable for the withdrawal of its estimated 150,000-strong forces in Iraq. The Bush administration had always insisted that any specific reduction of forces (let alone full withdrawal) could only be linked with security gains on the ground, and had only loosely adopted a roadmap for withdrawal.

However, with the Iraqi government under fierce public pressure to assert a sense of nationalism and ‘control’, a fixed-timetable for withdrawal became a core aspect of any agreement.

Under the signed pact, US forces are committed to leaving streets of Iraqi towns and villages by 30th June 2009 and leaving Iraq altogether by December 31, 2011.

Without a doubt, the setting of such a timetable on the surface represents a major negotiating victory for Iraq. Clearly, no matter how well dressed any agreement would have been in Iraq’s favour, it would have represented a symbolic failure, predominantly for Arab sections of the population, if withdrawal of US forces was not stipulated in such clear terms.

For the first time, Iraq’s government, at least on paper, is given authority over US troops. Furthermore, serving more of a symbolic importance than a practicality, US soldiers could be tried under Iraqi legislation but under very tough conditions.

The US viewpoint

Although, the US administration had insisted that the bar to changes to the previous draft was very high, in reality it had little choice but to adhere to the new round of amendments requested by Baghdad.

The US presence since shortly after the toppling of Saddam in 2003 has been governed by UN Security Council backed mandates, which has not been without its share of controversy from the beginning. The final UN mandate expires on 31st December 2008, meaning that a lack of a greater strategic framework agreement with Iraq would render US presence in Iraq as affectively “illegal”.

Such a scenario would have resulted in the stark possibility of a US suspension of activities in Iraq. More importantly, such a scenario just days before Bush’s tenure at the helm comes to an end, would have been capped as somewhat of a humiliating end to what was already a highly-contentious US adventure in Iraq under the auspices of Bush.

The Barrack Obama card in the agreement was indirectly a huge factor. Iraqi politicians were hesitant to sign any agreement prior to the US presidential elections without assurance that the next US President would honour the agreement. From that perspective, the appointment of Obama over presidential-rival John McCain was significant as Obama had highlighted the importance of withdrawal from Iraq within a set period (16 months of his appointment).

The US would clearly have advocated a strategic agreement affording a much stronger role in the execution of operations in Iraq and a more prolonged influence on the future direction of Iraq.

The Iraqi viewpoint

The agreement was certainly advantageous from an Iraqi perspective. A more forceful approach towards their US counterparts has been witnessed over the last year or so, and perhaps the agreement is a culmination of that.

It was of high-importance for Iraqi politicians to safeguard their reputations, as the negotiations became a case of national honour. The importance not to be viewed as yielding to US pressure and expectation to stand up to what many still perceive as “occupiers”, became a fundamental factor in the approach to negotiations.

Evidently, the finer details of the agreement were not clear to all Iraqis, and the significance for the Iraqi government became the overriding public perception of ‘victory’. In that perspective, nothing speaks more volumes of victory for most of the Iraqi population than the idea that they are under full control of all affairs and that their sovereignty is safeguarded.

The difficulty in incorporating such a spectrum of views across the across the Iraqi social fabric was iconic of the difficulties of the new democratic Iraq. On the one hand, the Kurds have overwhelmingly supported a decisive strategic agreement with the US from the outset and have long campaigned for a long-term US military presence. Conversely, the Sadrist bloc and other hard-line Shiite and Sunni groups on the other hand, have staged demonstrations marking their opposition to any deal with the US and have openly battled US forces at various intervals.

The aforementioned factors, coupled with the vital provincial elections scheduled for Iraq in early 2009, swayed the stance of Iraqi politicians.  With the upcoming provisional elections threatening to change the socio-political landscape of Iraq and thus endangering the position of many key personnel in the current Cabinet, the standpoint and perception of Iraqi politicians was under as much individual, as collective scrutiny.

The last round of amendments to the draft was designed to appease skeptical Shiite lawmakers and particularly Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who threatened to use his immense influence to “veto” support for the draft. It is likely that final adjustments to the draft, was the result of a direct trade-off with al-Maliki and ensure the public ‘silence’ of al-Sistani on the draft agreement.

With Iraqi politician’s witling down the pact beyond original expectations, Iraqi government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh statement that the agreement was “the best possible, available option” could not be truer.

Greater strategic agreement

Part of the security pact, is a draft framework agreement underlying the future shape of Iraqi-US relationships in a number of spheres. The framework is designed to define future cooperation and friendship in the areas of economy, culture, technology and a number of other areas, between both countries for years to come.

However, clearly the agreement became so dominated around withdrawal and sovereignty, that understanding and cooperation on other important levels became secondary.

However, for the both Iraq and particularly the US, the overall relationship must go beyond the next three years when US forces withdraw altogether. The US can ill-afford to abandon their Iraqi or Middle Eastern project without some surety that they can continue to influence proceedings in Iraq and the surrounding region.

In the long-term, in many ways this greater framework agreement, mapping out the relationships between both parties, was just as significant as the Sofa agreement.

Iraqi repercussions

Although the bold stance of the Iraqi government in negotiations marks an increasing aura of confidence, especially in light of dramatic security improvements, the road ahead for Iraq remains as tentative as ever.

The simple fact is that in spite of the tough position adopted by Iraqi negotiators, Iraq is not ready politically and certainly not as a force, without US assistance. A suspended US ‘presence’ on 1st January 2009, may have been welcomed by large sections of the population, but would have been catastrophic for Baghdad.

There are a key number of political milestones that must be achieved in the aim of great national reconciliation, with the cushion that the US forces can present.

The pressure is certainly on Iraqi politicians to build fragile security gains into concrete achievements. The landmines that dot the path ahead must be negotiated as successfully as the perceived security pact with the US, if Iraq does not transcend into a far worse position in three years time without the US, than the uncertainty of today with a world super-power at its disposal.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.

As Obama Takes US Elections by Storm, the Legacy of Bush is Not Lost on the Kurds

Leave a reply

Barrack Obama swept to victory in the US presidential elections, marking a momentous day in American history. The appointment of the first-black US president represented more than just this iconic and ground-breaking significance. Indeed the world, gripped with the worst economic crisis since the 1930’s, facing a growing threat of fundamentalism and reeling from cynicism caused by recent US foreign policy, has been crying out for a fresh impetus and new hope. 

Perhaps no individual will have greater expectations right now than that on Obama’s broad shoulders. Obama may well represent the energy that the globe is lacking, but he is no miracle worker. Obama can only work with the tools at this disposable and manoeuvre within constraints that the political stage allows.

Obama would do well to get people’s feet back on the ground and quell a level of expectation that if unchecked may ironically cripple his tenure before it has even started.

Obama’s appointment certainly stole the worlds gaze. However, as the worlds attention had turned to historic elections, the heated US presidential contest between Barack Obama and John McCain was observed with as much interest in Kurdistan as any part of the world.

After recent Republican legacy in Kurdistan and the more clear-cut promises of McCain over the US course in Iraq, arguably Obama was not the first choice of the Kurdish people.

The Name Bush in Kurdish folklore

If George Bush senior can be viewed by the Kurds with eternal gratitude for the establishment of the no-fly zone and onset of Kurdish liberalisation from tyranny in 1991, it is perhaps the actions of his son George. W. Bush that is forever etched in Kurdish folklore.

Conceivably, in later generations the Kurds may even view the decision by Bush junior to oust Saddam Hussein from power in the same breadth of Newroz folklore when Kawa the blacksmith defeated Zehak the evil ruler of these mystical lands, to free a nation in captivity thousands of years ago. The significance of the new dawn in Kurdish existence can not be overestimated.

Although, the Kurds have been betrayed far too many times, particularly by successive US governments, to take future American support for granted, the change of fortune in the seventeen years and particularly the last five since the liberalisation of Iraq, have been truly remarkable for an ancient, battle-weary and emotionally scarred people.

Not all the policies of the US government have bode well with the people of Kurdistan and US presidents throughout their new found autonomy have stopped short of full-fledged backing and support for the Kurdish nation, however the symbolic nature in which the Kurds were afforded their first opportunity to guide their future and look ahead to a new prosperous and unmolested path, can and will never be forgotten by the ever-grateful Kurds.

The Kurds, cold-heartedly sliced into pieces like disposable by-products in the aftermath of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, waited many decades to be rid of mass-oppression at the hands of their occupiers.

US intervention in 1991 may ironically have been forced and not wilfully decided by the US administration at the time and the world-super power could have acted years before the massacre of thousands of Kurdish civilians, rather than persevere in their own selfish strategic interests, nevertheless an invaluable opportunity was given to the Kurds to begin new chapters in their existence.

Kurdish anxiety

Kurdish trepidation and weariness at seeing their hard-fought gains vanish, is all too common, especially when their gains have not quite been encapsulated in protection and guarantee. Such mistrust, particularly towards their former Arab rulers in Iraq, can not simply vanish in a small period of time.

Pain and mourning, are not concepts that just disappear, lest from mentally-scarred citizens who have loved many a lost one and witnessed the razing of their villages.

So when an end of era arrives in America, a country on the path of ground breaking political change, Kurdish anticipation of the electoral results was understandable.

As thousands of Kurds watched with intent, it was the candidate that represented the next best thing to George Bush that dominated their gaze. In this context, John McCain was in a way the default man of choice in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Where Obama has raised Kurdish tension, by declaring his open-intent to withdraw troops from Iraq as soon as possible, McCain had remained defiant to stay the course and not allow their hard-won security gains in Iraq disappear.

Now Kurds watch developments in the White House with close-interest, and anticipate with anxiety the policy Obama adopts towards the Kurds. As US foreign policy in Iraq becomes destined for a shake-up under Obama, whether the Kurds will be given commitment and protection, as American attention turns elsewhere, is uncertain.

US Bases in Kurdistan

The willingness and encouragement for the establishment of permanent US bases in Kurdistan Region, may have stoked national sentiments further south in recent times, however the concept is nothing new.

Kurds have campaigned and supported the idea of some form of residual US presence in Kurdistan, regardless of any greater US-Iraqi security pact.

It’s hardly a secret that the majority of Kurds in Iraq are pro-western. However, such blatant endorsement of Kurdish autonomy by the new Obama administration may be nothing short of wishful thinking.

Just as the Kurds rely heavily on the US in the present and the future, in the quest to end their 5-year nightmare and to safeguard the seeds of their greater Middle Eastern project, the US rely heavily on broader Iraqi endorsement and Arab support.

Kurdistan president Massaud Barzani, currently in Washington for talks, emphasised the warm welcome the idea of the stationing of US troops in Kurdistan would receive, if the security pact was not signed by year end.

His remarks drew strong rebuke somewhat unsurprisingly from anti-US hardliners, namely from Moqtada al-Sadrs bloc, but also ironically from leading Kurdish figure and Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani. Talabani statement that all Iraqi constitutional laws apply to the Kurdistan region was inevitable. He may be an influential Kurdish leader, but as the symbolic figure-head of Iraq, he was hardly going to embrace the idea in public with open arms.

Status of Forces Agreement (Sofa) stalled

With the chances of passing the security pact under the remaining stewardship of Bush now slim, the chances of an agreement before year end, when US forces will find themselves in a legal vacuum, are now also diminishing.

What was deemed a final document awaiting vote by Iraq’s parliament, the draft has now been returned, somewhat disappointedly in the eyes of the Bush administration, with a fresh set of proposals and request for further rework.

US officials had previously labelled the chances of further revisions as unlikely. Despite more recent encouragement from Bush that a deal will be struck before year end, the US analysis of Iraqi recommendations, coupled with scepticism of high-ranking US officials may well mean that the pact will become one of the first testing challenges facing Obama as new US president.

The attitude of a majority of Iraqi politicians to be seen standing up for national pride and not to cede under US influence, has meant an agreement, that was already a product of dilution, may require further downgrading to the annoyance of the US.

However, as much as Baghdad can ill-afford to lose the support of the US in such a short period of time, conversely Washington without common agreement to remain in Iraq, will suffer huge humiliation come 1st January 2009 with the absence of symbolic legal cover

Greater Iraqi View

Other than the Kurdistan region, where the next US president and more importantly his moves and motives for the country, have taken much more significance, the general view in the rest of Iraq is less intensive.

Obama’s appointment will bode well with large sections of the Iraqi population who favoured a quick departure of American forces, and remained unmoved from a perception of Bush as their own Western tyrant. The significance of Obama’s skin-colour and his distinct origins is not forgotten on most Iraqis (or the great Middle Eastern landscape for that matter).

However, most Arabs sceptics generally believe that the choice of presidency will hold little sway, in light of more encompassing strategic institutions that will determine greater US policies.

This view may hold some weighting, after all to a large extent the arms of the new US president will still in some way, shape or from be constricted by the legacy of the Bush administration. No US president however gallant can escape from this fact.

Furthermore, US foreign policy has always been long-term especially with certain regards, for example the strong support for Israel becoming almost constitutional over the years. Decades of foreign ideals and strategic manoeuvring for a world order in the vision of the US, can not be altered greatly or at the pace many demand. Even the effervescent and bold Obama, may struggle to conjure wholesale and controversial changes.

Untangling of this web by Democrats now in power, will take time and may consume their first term. In light of this, Obama can ill-afford to bring down Bush’s principles in Iraq, with a lack of remorse. If he does and the Iraqi project derails badly, the nails in his presidential coffin may have been sealed before it even began. The security pact, even if modified further, will clearly see US presence in Iraq for at least 4 years.

However, regardless of the differing camps of view on Bush’s eight-year tenure at the helm and the capacity of Obama to enact real change, there is a broad and energised consensus in US and the international stage, that a fresh outlook was required and a new page can now be turned. A jubilant Obama hopes to provide just that.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

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

Further Stalling by Iraqi Politicians, Leaves Great Danger of US Suspension in Iraq

Leave a reply

After Iraq’s Political Council for National Security stalled in successive days to approve, the presumed ‘take it or leave it’, final draft of the SOFA agreement, US officials once again pressed their Iraqi counterparts to accept the deal. 

It is hoped that if approval is obtained by the council, which practically brings together key political heads across Iraq, from presidency to the heads of major blocs in parliament, ratification by parliament would be a formality.

However, in Iraq where finding broad political agreement is notoriously painstaking, this may be easier said than done.

Dramatic Consequences

In a stark warning, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, stated that without the Status of Forces Agreement (Sofa), then the US activities would be effectively suspended.  Such “dramatic consequences” noted by Gates, should give the Iraqi political process a firm jolt.

However, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh had earlier claimed that leaders were “still hesitant to approve or reject” the deal, placing uncertainty on the chances of a fast turn-around, if not rejection of the draft altogether.

According to al-Dabbagh, ministers would meet in the days ahead for consultation and put forward suggested amendments.  It is hoped that the amended draft can then be sent back to the negotiation table. With US expressing “great reluctance” to renegotiate, the table may remain bare.

Intense Negotiations

After months of negotiations and compromise, an agreement in principle stretching as far back as late 2007 and a missed target of the end of July originally earmarked for the approval of the strategic framework agreement, hopes for a swift pact evaporated.

After months of tense, protected and at times controversial negotiations and over 5 years of what should now in theory at least represent a blossoming partnership between the US and Iraqi governments, the absence of the strategic agreement strikes a blow to future cooperation and will undoubtedly undermine ties.

The original perception from the both governments was that the draft agreement, after concessions from both sides and a multitude of meetings, was now in its final format and can only be accepted or rejected by the Iraqi parliament. US certainly believe that they have done all they can to appease Iraqi anxiety over its sovereignty.

Fragmented Iraqi Landscape

After pushing US compromise to the limit, there is a general consensus amongst some Iraqi parliamentarians that the current form of the deal is the best they can attain.

However, even this reality may not be enough to enforce agreement. Perhaps it should come as no surprise that in the diverse ethnic fabric that is Iraq, establishing such an agreement with the Americans has proved a thorny national issue and the source of much debate.

The fragmented nature of the Iraqi landscape is best depicted, when one-side of the Iraqi divide, namely the Sadrist block are dead against an agreement in any form with the American “occupiers”, whilst conversely for the Kurdish Coalition, a long-term US hand in Iraq is strongly advocated and actively supported.

Only this weekend, thousands of supporters of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr demonstrated against the security agreement.

After deadly-conflicts between the Mehdi Army and US forces in past years, Sadrist opposition is hardly surprising. However, rising voices of discontent from the main Shiite coalition, United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), has clouded the chances of concord.

Iranian meddling in this affair is more than likely. After all they will certainly use all their “friends” within Iraqi government circles, to drastically dilute, if not revoke such an agreement affecting their sphere of influence, and at times of such animosity with the Bush administration.

US Reassurance

At the pinnacle of Iraqi concern, and the main cause of delays, is the issue of sovereignty. A growingly confident Iraqi government has continually strived to assert its dominance in recent times. The primary question, for sceptical Iraqis is who will really call the shots in Iraq, the Iraqi government or the US administration?

US Ambassador Ryan Crocker once again defended the draft agreement and tried to provide reassurance that Iraq will assume its sovereignty in full.

US officials had pressed hard not to include a definitive timetable for withdrawal, but under the watered-down agreement still to be published, it is envisaged that US forces will leave Iraqi cities by June 2009 and withdraw from Iraq altogether by the end of 2011.

The other Iraqi obstacle to agreement is wording around the liability of US troops and contractors from Iraqi prosecution. Phrasing on the conditions for immunity has been drastically altered, but has still failed to strike the right sentiments with the main Shiite alliance.

The key message from the US administration is that the security pact was always designed with Iraq’s best interests in mind, and based on a voluntary Iraqi endeavour to request continuing US assistance, rather than a forcibly-applied US presence.

What now for the security agreement?

If chances of renegotiation of the draft are slight, then the probability of major concessions at this stage is almost certainly out of the question. However, something must give in this impasse.

If no agreement is reached by the end of this year, when the ‘final’ UN mandate ends, either the current powers afforded continue under a new mandate, which by Gates own admission is not a “clean” option, or the US leave altogether. Ironically, Iraqis do not seem to want both these scenarios.

In recent times, the much-pressurised Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, has tried hard to be portrayed as a strong nationalistic leader, rather than a tool of the US administration. Al-Maliki has expressed his desire to see the draft pass by a two-thirds majority in parliament, to win wider national endorsement.

But such a contentious issue, and the diversity of opinion across the Iraqi social mosaic, means that pleasing all sides is always going to be impossible no matter how agreements with the US are dressed.

High-stakes

Clearly, the US can ill-afford to hastily cut their losses in Iraq, after 5 years of sacrifice and much effort to establish stability and elusive national reconciliation. Security achievements remain brittle and certainly gains are reversible as quickly as they were yielded.

The US administration must ensure that a minimum they keep a strategic-hand, albeit in less-militaristic terms, for years to come, to prevent their Iraqi and more importantly their greater Middle Eastern project, from dramatically falling to pieces.

However, the popular belief that US will remain under any circumstance is misleading. Growing US public discontent, a daunting economic recession, rampant unemployment, a global credit crisis and the impeding change of president, coupled with the billions of dollars spent every month in Iraq, will mean that the US will want to cut back their Iraqi adventures sooner rather than later, without leaving civil anarchy behind.

On the hand, the security agreement represents the best terms that the Iraqi government can get. They have won major concessions and can ill-afford to see their US counterparts leave the country in haste at such times of deep national vulnerability. It is true that Iraqi politicians will aim to be viewed as strong national leaders and thus try to surmount a tougher stance, least to be seen to succumb to US “occupiers”, but they need the US more than ever.

Growing frictions between the KRG and Baghdad, the lack of a hydrocarbon law, bitter disputes over Kirkuk and the implementation of the constitution, and not forgetting the potentially disastrous ramifications if the incorporation of the Sunni Sahwa councils is not treaded with utter caution, all highlight the dangerous road ahead in Iraq.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.

As its National Pride is Wounded, Turkey Invariably Points the Finger at the Iraqi Kurds

Leave a reply

Turkish military and political leaders squarely accused the Iraqi Kurds of having an indirect hand in the latest deadly showdown between PKK rebels, reportedly resulting in the death of 15 Turkish soldiers and 23 Kurdish rebels, and countless wounded.

Perhaps, it was the daring nature of the daytime attack near the border that shocked the Turkish hierarchy, pressing them into a customary strong-worded rhetoric. The strong and respected Turkish army, as the protectorate of the republic and the symbol of Turkish nationalism, have since the inception of Kemalist-ideology, posed an almost mystical identity. The idea of such a flagrant attack by the much-loathed rebels was bound to rattle sentiments across Turkey.

However, as much as Turkey would hate to believe, let alone acknowledge, even the mystical might of the Turkish army has simply not been enough to counter an equally vibrant nationalist movement. The analogy is of a ferocious lion been bitten in broad daylight, by a much smaller-cat, who in the knowledge of been unable to ever directly counter such a beast, will nevertheless aim to strike psychological ‘bites’ to the proud animal rather than ever serve it any great physical damage.

This attack, along with those of the past has done just that. They have hurt Turkish pride and stoked national sentiments, forcing Turkey to take decisive action as in the mass-invasion of this year, designed to send unwavering intent that the lion will fight back to uphold its honour and eminence, than belief they can kill the nemesis cat in the midst of a torrential landscape.

As mass funerals and patriotic outcries highlight the death of every Turkish soldier, thousands of Kurdish deaths, the ‘debris’ of the greater nationalist-project, are ignored. Insurgent and violent means of gaining goals, least of all terrorist acts, belong in the bygone era and are ultimately counter-productive and a prelude to tarnishing what may essentially be a justifiable cause. However, let’s not forget that there is a mourning mother on each side.

While, it is simply untrue to allege such direct Iraqi Kurdish support such as to provide weapons, roads and hospitals, undeniably as the crisis grows and Turkey takes more abrasive action, it is slowly submerging Iraqi Kurdish sentiments into the conflict. The Iraqi Kurds rely heavily on Turkey, and in the modern era maintaining strong relationship with a monumental European neighbour has been much more important than aiding and abetting their ethnic-brethren in a violent battle that the Iraqi Kurds would do well to avoid.

It is true the Iraqi Kurds could do more. But in the eyes of Turkey, this ‘more’ is a deadly inconclusive inter-ethnic confrontation with the PKK, resulting in mass-suffering for the local population and destabilisation of the region. And for what? In order that Turkey will continue to treat the Kurdistan Regional Government with disrespect and utter discontent, let alone the simple virtue of acknowledgment and direct dialogue?

The time for realism has never been greater in the back of this latest shockwave across the region. On the eve of Turkish parliamentary vote to extend the 1-year authorisation for cross-border attacks, this attack was clearly designed to ensure that Turkey will not only authorise another extension but take graver disproportionate measures against their foes.

And this is exactly the focus and attention that not only the PKK craves, but it decisively needs to survive as a movement. As Turkey will feel forced to take more abrasive measures, this will eventually evoke a broader regional conflict that will serve no sides, but the sides of violence and bloodshed.

Turkey must act at the root of problems. Rather than addressing how to shoot down rebels in mountains, Turkey could seek ways of seeing them come down at their own will.

Promises of greater south-eastern development and more encompassing reforms, may have been more than encouraging compared to past records, but in the context of today have been beset without any significant action.

Now is the time to stop further blood-shed and promote a feeling of brother-hood in Turkey. Lets not let forgot there are millions of disgruntled Kurds in Turkey, and only a minority in arms. Not all Kurds believe in confrontation, not all Kurds rejoice at Turkish deaths. The people want jobs, peace and prosperity – they have long-chosen Turkey and the prospects of the EU over unrealistic daydreams.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: eKurd, Peyamner, Various Misc.

Amidst Political Wrangling, the Existing Guiding Light in Iraq, the Constitution, is sidelined.

Leave a reply

Hopes for a swift ratification of the provincial election law, after parliament’s summer recess, have been dashed with the negotiations assuming the same protracted path.

Further attempts at reaching a compromise agreement have only culminated in heightened emotions in rival camps. Earlier this week Kurdish lawmakers rejected amendments to the elections law regarding Kirkuk, a city fast becoming the Iraqi thorn most dreaded. The UN envoy, led by Steffan de Mistura, in tune with their Iraqi counterparts have been slow in  proposing solutions acceptable to all sides, almost a year after been charged with resolving the crisis over article 140.

However, disputes over Kirkuk and the shaping of the election law is just a tip of the iceberg in mounting friction between Baghdad and the Kurdistan Region. Debates still rage on claims of Kurdish advances beyond their “zone” of influence, the share of the Iraqi budget, status and integration of Kurdish forces into the Iraqi army and the formation of a new hydrocarbon law, which with the record oil prices on the global stage has added extra bite to the distribution ofstaggering oil revenues.

Somewhat ironically, Kurdish-Shiite relations were strong as the fledgling democratic motion took grip in Iraq. Both sides formed a productive and solid alliance in the mayhem that ensued after the Iraqi liberation. Understanding was commonplace on the blueprint of Iraq, non-better highlighted than the passing of the Iraqi constitution in 2005, despite some key differences. 

So much as agreement on federalism, Kirkuk and definition of the new Iraq highlighted the promising signs of democracy and all the trappings of classic compromise at the time, in hindsight the tentative agreements only veiled a ticking time-bomb.

It is no coincidence that as Nouri al-Maliki’s government has grown in power and military confidence, their stance has been continually more authoritarian and rigid in execution. Whilst al-Maliki can certainly be accredited for installing growing security and taking impartial action against rogue elements as an Iraqi strongman, it must not be forgotten that he is only the head of a coalition cabinet and is appointed to serve the whole of sovereign Iraq.

Clearly, a strong government in the midst of many destabilising elements in Iraq and contentious neighbours is a necessity for Iraqi progression. However, this must be based on the virtues of democracy and pluralism. Swaying of a military might and the associated threats this brings is simply unacceptable.

Beyond all the issues currently tainting relations between Kurdistan Region and Baghdad, lies the quandary of power. The Kurds, after a painful and unforgettable experience in the Iraqi experiment, are naturally careful to safeguard their gains as well as their future. The thirst for Kurdish strength comes in the quest for self-sustainability and self-sufficiency. For them, only greater autonomy as part of a federal structure will enforce that.

Mistrust and animosity, simply can not be wiped by a mentally-scarred nation. Conversely, it’s unwise to assume that all the Baathist elements that created Saddam Hussein and Arab hegemony have simply disappeared because Saddam statues and pictures are no longer in sight.

As Kurds strive for protection and implementation of a strong region, in turn this rattles the cages in Baghdad who in fear of inhibiting a weak status and losing national sway, invariably want to show who is still boss in Iraq.

If the rest of Iraq is genuine about partnership and a harmonious existence, then any achievement or gains in Kurdistan should be heralded and not despised.

The negative campaign to discredit the Kurdistan region and tarnish the image of the Kurds is unwelcome. Clearly, some politicians in Baghdad have been inducing and taking advantage of bitter stand-offs, with the aim of weakening the Kurdish position.

A future based on dialogue and federalism is the safety-net for all of Iraq, from Arbil to Basra. If Kurds ask for anything more than stated in the adopted constitution, then Baghdad will have a point.

Much of the current disputes including Kirkuk, oil sharing and federalism were already agreed and approved by 80% of the Iraqi population. There is already a strong basis for the shaping of Iraq.

Although US officials have continuously backed the constitution, after all it represent the exact democratic beacon that they claimed to bring, they have avoided taking sides in the debacle – even as democracy they have doggedly heralded is undermined, to safeguard their own achievements in their troubled adventures in Iraq.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.