Tag Archives: Kurdistan

The growing strategic role of the KRG in the region

Leave a reply

Once considered the “problem” of the Kurdish nationalist struggles in Turkey and Iran, the KRG is now a ray of hope for peace and mediation

As a major Turkish military incursion into Kurdistan slowly wanes in the aftermath of the fierce national backlash that resulted from the deadliest PKK attack since 1993, attention needs to urgently move towards a long-term solution to Kurdish struggle in Turkey.

The continuous cycle of PKK attacks met by the military might of Turkey has been raging for decades with no clear end-game in sight. Unless Turkey makes serious diplomatic overtures and the PKK shows real intent to lay down their arms the prospect of peace will be as distant as ever.

The Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) has found itself in the cross-fire between PKK and PJAK on one side and Turkey and Iran on the other over the years. Too often in the past the Turkish and Iranian governments have been quick to label the Kurdistan Region as the “problem”, even though the true foundations of their struggles were laid at home.

Increasingly there is now growing appreciation and recognition of the KRG as the fulcrum of any potential resolution and the facilitator of peace. As the official Kurdish representation in the region and with growing economical, strategic and strategic clout, the Kurdistan Region has become the hub of the Kurdish renaissance everywhere and indeed become a real interlocutor of the Kurdish nationalist struggles in Turkey, Iran and Syria.

This week Kurdistan Region president Massoud Barzani paid a visit to Tehran with the goal of reinforcing bilateral ties, a sense of brotherhood and emphasizing the shared goals of both governments. Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi’s and Barzani both decreed this week that the issue of PJAK rebels, at war with Iran was “over”. This was a symbolic statement and if the long-term situation is upheld then this proves a significant achievement for all sides.

There is no doubt that it was more the mediation of the Kurdistan Region than the firepower of Iran that resulted in the accomplishment of a ceasefire between PJAK and Tehran.

In a similar vein Barzani is due to make an official visit to Turkish sometime this month at the request of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The common theme will be ensuring the peace and security of the Turkish border, reemphasizing strong ties between Erbil and Ankara but also the direct involvement of the KRG in facilitating a solution that can appease all sites and achieve elusive peace.

PKK leader Murat Karayılan’s recent statement reaffirmed the belief that Barzani will be at the forefront of a peaceful solution to the Turkish struggle in Turkey.

Barzani message is likely to be a reiteration of a tough line with the PKK, that the Kurdistan region can no longer accept any entity that will jeopardize their crucial relations with Turkey. However, Barzani will also make clear to Ankara of the need to settle their internal affairs in a peaceful and democratic fashion and not punish all Kurds within Turkey as well as the Kurdistan region for the actions of a few.

Turkey has tried and frequently failed to entice the KRG into a direct struggle with fellow Kurds and at the same time has failed to enact practical reform that the Turkish Kurds have so long craved with their democratic opening program a case of stop-start at best.

The solution to the PKK struggle lies in Turkey’s hand and with the right overtures and the crucial support of the KRG there is every chance that true peace can be achieved in Turkey.

In order to achieve such a vital solution, the Turkish government must pay serious heed to the demands of the PKK and allow direct and constructive negotiations with the PKK leadership. Turkey cannot simply choose to ignore the PKK demands, take for granted the Kurdish desire in Turkey by continuously neglecting democratic and constitutional reform and at the same time to choose to violate the sovereignty of the Kurdistan Region.

If Turkey is intent on true and long lasting resolution to its age-old Kurdish dilemma then it needs to make difficult choices and choose a clear way forward. It cannot exclusively be on terms that they the dictate and expect resolutions as they desire. There many factors and parties that Turkey need to consider and Ankara must make difficult sacrifices.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc.

Withdraw without condition

Leave a reply

As Turkey enters Iraq for “revenge”, the wider context is overlooked once more  

A chilling and coordinated attack by PKK rebels that led to the death of at least 24 Turkish soldiers and many wounded sent shockwaves throughoutTurkey.

Such was the determination for a harsh response that the Turkish army quickly launched a massive ground invasion of Kurdistan on yet another quest to defeat the rebels. “A large-scale land operation, backed by air strikes, has begun in five separate spots insideTurkeyand across the border with 22 battalions,” the military general staff said in a statement.   

Turkish president, Abdullah Gul had vowed “revenge” and a stern response under a watchful and enraged public eye. The harsh Turkish reprisal may benefit the PKK as it means a renewed straining of ties between Ankara and Erbil, places the Iraqi Kurds into a difficult corner and simultaneously diminishes the chances of a political resolution to the Kurdish problem inTurkey.

The President of the Kurdistan Region, Massoud Barzani, strongly condemned the latest attacks while labeling the event as a “crime”. With Nechirvan Barzani already inAnkara, the common theme was to soothe Turkish tensions and reinforce brotherhood betweenTurkeyand the Kurdistan Region. However, ultimately Ankara would not be swayed from its intent to show the PKK and possibly even Erbil just who calls the shots in the region. 

Clashes between troops and rebels have intensified in the aftermath of the recent national elections inTurkey, resulting in significant aerial bombardment and shelling by Turkish forces in the border regions in recent months. However, the manner of the recent attacks, which coincided with the establishment of a committee to oversee the rewriting of the Turkish constitution, sent alarm bells ringing in Ankara and under a cloud of public anger forced the Turkish government to respond with strong measures.

The attacks by rebels resulted in the biggest military death toll since 1993 and were met with international wide condemnation.

As many political powers renewed their support for the Turkish quest to eradicate the rebels, there is a great danger that once againTurkeyand its allies are overlooking the wider context of events.

Such was the nature of the attack that none would expect Turkey remain idle but it is easy for foreign powers to look at this as an individual incident rather than with the framework that the issue deserves.

This is a deep-rooted, emotively-charged and bloody 27-year war that has cost in excess of 40,000 lives, billions of dollars, destruction of villages and caused immense mental scarring. This is the not the first attack and certainly not the last. History has clearly proved the limits of military power even for the second largest army in NATO.

As long as the Kurdish political actors in Turkey remain weak and the Kurds are deprived of real political representation, the PKK will continue to act as the default flag-bearer of the Kurds, even if it does not necessarily represent the greater will of the Kurdish population. The growing focus on PKK as the source of the Kurdish problem and the ongoing energy consumed by the government to defeat the rebels as a way to overcome the Kurdish issue places the Kurds into a difficult predicament.

The greater Kurdish population yearns for peace and not violence and is tired and frustrated from decades of political, social and economic handicaps that the ongoing conflict has caused.

Turkey has acted against the PKK and this is a natural retaliation for any government, however, it needs to urgently employ a dual approach whereby it also reassures the greater Kurdish population of the Turkish will for fraternity, to solve their age old Kurdish dilemma, that the democratic opening remains a priority and that the government does not intend to punish all Kurds for the actions of a few.

The era of violence in the pursuit of political goals has certainly diminished but Turkey must also prove that it has turned the page not just in words but also in practical steps.

The Turkish state belongs to both the Kurds and Turks and this is a fact that nothing can mask. Only true reconciliation and brotherhood can propelTurkeyto the heights it intends to achieve and mentalities and policies of the past can never exclusively disadvantage the Kurdish populated south eastern part ofTurkey.

The Kurds can be factor that fuels a new strategic strength of Turkey in Europe and Asia or it can be factor that will indefinitely blight and drag the whole of Turkeyas a “sick power”.

As emotions run dangerously high inTurkey, it is of paramount importance that the US, European and regional powers act as a blanket of comfort to both Turks and Kurds. Obliterating the Iraqi Kurdistan regional areas with a show of firepower will never achieve Turkish goals. If a military solution was such a viable reality all these years, why wouldTurkeywait until 2011 and thousands of lives later to resolve this issue?

US President Barrack Obama, whilst harshly condemning the attacks inTurkey, emphasizes that “…the Turkish people, like people everywhere, deserve to live in peace, security and dignity.” While Obama’s statement is valid, there should not be hesitation by world powers to utter the word “Kurds” in the same breath.

There should be a distinct emphasis on the equal rights of the Kurdish population to live in peace, security and within the framework of international charters. While Turkey has made a number of strides in this regard, it is by no means at the level expected for a global power that is actively seeking to expand its sphere of influence.

Turkey continues to live under fear of its significant Kurdish minority rather than embracing them as a true and integral component of the state. At the same time, the Kurds look towards Turkeywith distrust and lack of conviction.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon emphasised the necessity for both Iraq and Turkeyto work together to end what he deemed as “unacceptable” cross-border attacks by Kurdish PKK rebels. Ban’s insistence that the sovereignty of both Turkey and Iraq must be respected was a welcome step. This matter is not simply about appeasing angry or nationalistic sentiments inAnkara, the matter has far greater ramifications across the region.

Within Turkey itself, the much maligned BDP found itself engrossed in the cross fire yet again. It has been subject to heavy criticism by the Turkish government which has culminated in an all time low for relations between both parties as a result of the Kurdish boycott of parliament and the subsequent unilateral declaration of democratic autonomy in the Kurdish areas.

BDP co-chairpersons Gülten Kışanak and Selahattin Demirtaş called for peace as the only solution in a written statement, “We say ‘enough’ to this war and these deaths. The painful picture today once again shows that Turkey urgently needs peace…”

In spite of calls for unity and reconciliation by the BDP, the AKP government quickly poured water on any air of sincerity or warmth generated by such overtures by once again branding the BDP and the PKK with the same brush.

The AKP, which still received a large portion of Kurdish votes, should not renege on its promise to implement its democratic opening or to focus on developing the south eastern region. The idea that there is no longer a Kurdish problem but a terrorism problem is wrong. The so-called terrorist issue comes from the Kurdish problem the Kurdish problem does not come from the terrorism issue.

One of the main reasons for the stalling of the democratic opening was the increasing nationalist resistance inTurkey. The rising hawkish voices ensure that the hands of the government become restrained and progress reverses rather than making any significant strides forward.

As Turkey answers Kurdish rebels with a strong fist, it must also show the Kurds that it will not forsake their rights, demands and voices for the sake of the appeasing only the Turkish sentiments.

More importantly, Turkey should do all it can to respect the sovereignty of the KRG and withdraw without condition.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

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

Growing polarisation of Turkey deepened by a policy of no-peace and no-war

Leave a reply

The promise of progression in the Kurdish opening and a true resolution to Turkey’s age old Kurdish dilemma has slowly disintegrated.

Rather than a positive climate that should been created by AKP’s historic success at the recent elections with anticipation of democratic reform and a new constitution combined by a record number of Kurdish PM’s elected to parliament, the last few months have served as an ominous prelude to a growing social divide, increased bitterness and rising inter-communal  tension.

The PKK continues to cast a hefty shadow on the Kurdish landscape yet the government refuses to negotiate with them, and continues to attack them culturally, politically and militaristically thereby punishing all Kurds.

Underpinned by a Kurdish boycott of parliament and a contentious declaration of democratic autonomy much to the fury of Ankara is a number of controversial trials of Kurdish politicians and a deepening Kurdish-Turkish divide created by a growing number of Turkish casualties in an escalating war with the PKK.

With signs of a dangerous increase in the polarisation of Turkey, sentiments are hardly helped with the recent high-profile charges against Kurdish politicians.

Only this week Turkey charged over 100 Kurdish politicians, 98 of which are former mayors, for signing a demand over two years ago that called for better conditions for imprisoned former PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan.

Prosecutors had deemed that such demands constituted terrorist propaganda, whereas for the Kurds it merely reemphasised the prevalent out-dated mentality and approach of the Turkish judiciary. The politicians could face years in jail and the trials will almost certainly placate growing Kurdish resentment towards Ankara.

As witnessed by the huge Kurdish uproar and protests that came with a number of pre-election arrests and charges, the Kurds are increasingly determined to stand up to what they see as Turkish political aggression against the advancement of the Kurdish cause. The BDP have maintained a boycott of parliament in retaliation for the stripping of jailed deputy Hatip Dicle of his seat.

The proclamation of more trails comes hot on the heels of popular Kurdish deputy Aysel Tuğluk who was elected to parliament last month been given a two year sentence for similar charges.

Placing a dark cloud on reconciliation and soothing of sentiments is the high-profile “KCK trials” which includes 12 Kurdish mayors and dozens of other politicians. Ankara has accused them of been part of KCK, an umbrella organisation of the PKK.

The nature of these trials has cause greater enmity amongst the Kurdish community and even criticism from the European Union and international observers. The continuing harassment of Kurdish political parties and the application of ruthless outdated penalties in cases where there is subjective evidence at best, not only damages the chances of a breakthrough via Kurdish political channels but yet again places the Kurds into opposing camps of thought.

The Turkish government has vehemently refused to negotiate with the PKK on an official level, yet the continuing disillusionment in Kurdish circles and the suppression of any Kurdish political vehicle, means that the PKK remains as entrenched a part of the Kurdish problem and thereby its solution as ever.

Only this week Abdullah Ocalan in a detailed and emotive statement ended talks with the AKP, claiming “If they want me to resume a role then I have three conditions, health, security and an area where I can move freely”.

It is clear from the statement that the AKP has long been in discussions with the PKK. However, while refusing to legitimise the demands of the PKK against a backdrop of hawkish circles, it at the same time tries to muster peace.

Ocalan accused both the AKP and PKK of using him as a ‘subcontractor’ and for their own purposes. Ocalan claimed the AKP wants war and does not want to resolve the question.

While some claim that Ocalan’s apparent criticism of the current PKK command and those who rally around his name, is a sign of dissent within PKK circles, it is not clear how much sway Ocalan had in any case from his prison cell. Ocalan’s name continues to be used as a figurehead and to strengthen the PKK identity, in reality the PKK is the result of a greater Kurdish problem and not an Ocalan problem. Even if the PKK were banished, under the current hostile climate another off-shoot will quickly emerge.

Turkish nationalism and suffocation of the infant Kurdish political renaissance means more than ever the PKK remain the default representation of the Kurds and the only true interlocutors to the Kurdish problem.

It seems that after thousands of lost lives, billions dollars of lost expenditure and decades of failed policies towards the Kurds, Ankara still doesn’t come to term with the limits of any military solution. In recent weeks the Turkey has reaffirmed its commitment to attack the rebels with all its might. The life of either a Kurd or Turk is equally sacred and tears of a mother are equally regretful. After 40 years of confrontation and painful memories, it is time that all sides see that bloodshed must be ended.

Only recently Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan boldly proclaimed, “there is no Kurdish problem; only a PKK problem.” And that the issues of the Kurdish citizens in Turkey are not to do with the PKK.

On the contrary, the PKK has not been eradicated because Turkey has refused to see that the problem is not 5000 guerrillas but 15 million people. Without resolving the root of its age-old conundrum, Turkey’s continual cutting of branches will never bear any fruit.

The issue of the 5000 guerrillas and the 15 million people goes hand in hand. More than ever the PKK is intertwined with the struggle of the Kurds in Turkey.

Too often Turkey’s policies have meant that Kurds have been trapped with no real alternative. Not for the first time, the Kurdish political campaign has ground to a halt and the PKK remains the noose by which Ankara can control and intimidate the Kurds. Ankara too often not only tries to resolve the problem without the PKK but without the Kurds themselves.

Turkey’s policies continually place the Kurds into the hands of the PKK, yet ironically the Turks then use this as an opportunity to charge Kurds for been supporters of the PKK.

It is Ankara’s policies and continual labelling of any pro-Kurdish figure as PKK or terrorist related that has given the PKK more weight.

This general labelling of Kurds in Turkish circles as separatists or PKK collaborators has fuelled inter-communal friction. Not all Kurds support the PKK lest all Kurds been supporters of violence or having anti-Turkish sentiments.

This is demonstrated with the strong support for the AKP in previous elections, and even though they were over shadowed by BDP’s record success at the recent polls, the AKP still mustered 30 seats.

But clearly the Kurds feel that they have given the AKP enough time and support, but the AKP has not lived up to its pledges and bold pre-electoral promises.

The problem is that although the AKP has made a number of positive steps and breakthroughs in resolving the Kurdish problem in last decade or so, their hands are tied by the nationalist elite and general nationalist euphoria that plagues Turkish society.

Keeping the Kurds content with piecemeal gestures in the east yet appeasing nationalist circles in the west has proved almost impossible.

On the back of the recent spate of Turkish casualties in fighting with the PKK, inter-communal tension has become dangerously high.

Popular Kurdish singer Aynur Dogan was heckled off the stage by the audience at a concert for singing in Kurdish after the death of Turkish soldiers. This was preceded by protests and attacks by both sides in Istanbul.

This attack on Kurdish identity shows the progress that Turkey still needs to make. There appears this mentality that an attack on a Turk by a small group of Kurds is akin by an attack by all Kurds.

The younger generation of Kurds, with growing expectations and resentment towards Ankara, will be more difficult to appease. This standoff between expectant and frustrated Kurds and the government’s tentative dealing of its Kurdish problem will only lead to a wider gulf.

The only solution is a new Turkey that embraces the Kurds as true partners and as a key component of their society.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc.

Iranian incursions into Kurdistan damages the credibility of Baghdad and the US

Leave a reply

The intensifying Iranian battle with PJAK rebels highlights the failed policies of Iran and Turkey in addressing their long-standing Kurdish problem.

Whilst Turkey’s long standing battle with the PKK on the Iraqi Kurdistan border region often dominates the headlines, ironically there is a mirror conflict on the other side of the border between PJAK and Iran.

In a familiar tone to their Turkish neighbours, Iran has accused the KRG of supporting the Iranian Kurdish rebels and has frequently defended their frequent violation of Iraqi sovereignty as a “right”.

Much like their Turkish counterparts, Tehran sees the issue of the rebels as a terrorist issue as opposed to a greater national identity issue and has refused to address the roots of the problems through dialogue, reconciliation and modern principles.

This week saw fierce clashes between the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) and PJAK rebels along the Kurdish region border and within KRG territory itself. Some Iraqi media reports had claimed as much as 10,000 Iranian soldiers may have penetrated the region.

Although clashes appear to be intensifying, Iranian shelling and bombing of the northern-most areas of the provinces of Erbil and Sulaimanyia is nothing new. This has led to much damage, death of livestock, disruption of lives and even civilian casualties.

The recent incursion and fierce clashes in Iraqi territory comes despite a recent warning by Massoud Barzani over his increasing weariness over Iranian actions.

“We condemn the artillery fire against Iranian citizens in the border region of Kurdistan,” stated Barzani earlier in the month. Such measures should naturally lead to review of bilateral relationships even if Kurdistan has worked hard to forge strong relations with Tehran.

In light of the Shiite-led governments of Iran and Iraq enjoying close cooperation, the violation of sovereignty with US troops still in large numbers on Iraqi soil, is stark threat, sets the wrong precedence and endangers Kurdistan’s credibility. Can Baghdad prove it can throw its own weight in the face of transgression from the Shiite partners or does Tehran’s increasing military and political clout now place Iraq under their direct sphere of influence?

As Iran tries to eliminate their Kurdish rebels, it continues to support a number of proxy forces in Iraq and the Middle East, on the doorstep of America forces. Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta recently stated that Iran’s government had stepped up its weapons shipments to Shiite extremist groups, echoing trends of the past few years.

PJAK took up arms in 2004 but Kurdish resentment with successive Iranian governments goes back several decades. Whilst Iranian Kurds have never been denied outright unlike their brethren in Turkey and have had a level of cultural freedom, any notion of Kurdish power lest autonomy has been harshly crushed. The Kurdish battle for self-rule and more government representation goes back to before and after the Iranian Islamic revolution.

For the best part the Kurds had shaky relations with the Shah’s government and initially supported the overthrow of the Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi in favour of the Islamic revolution in hope of achieving a new break and stronger political influence. However, as a predominantly Sunni group, their demands for power, representation and autonomy was seen as a threat to the new regime in Tehran and a step too far for Iran’s new leaders. The Kurds were denied seats in the assembly of experts formed in 1979 and tasked with the writing of the new constitution.

As early as 1979 Kurdish rebels were engaged with battles against Iranian forces with Ayatollah Khomeini declaring Jihad against the Kurdish people.

The Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (KDPI) and the leftist Komala (Revolutionary Organization of Kurdish Toilers) held the flagship of the Kurdish armed resistance at the time. Although the KDPI has long withdrawn from its military struggle, its new quest of achieving goals through diplomacy and non-violent means has hardly borne great fruit proving Iran’s lack of real desire for a sincere reach-out to the Kurds as it simultaneously tries to crush the rebels but offer little alternative in return.

PJAK is a part of the Kurdistan Democratic Confederation (Koma Civakên Kurdistan or KCK) umbrella along with the PKK and affectively share common ideology and command structure. Whereas the PKK has been strongly condemned by the US, for years there were reports of US contact and support with the PJAK rebels much to the annoyance of the Iranians.

With Iranian proxy cells causing chaos for the US at the height of the Iraqi insurgency, the PJAK was one tool that the Americans could use against Tehran.

However, perhaps owed to Obama’s vision of soothing ties with Iran and repairing the damaged US foreign image, Obama was quick to declare PJAK a terrorist organization and froze its assets to appease Tehran.

Furthermore, the PJAK and PKK issue has somewhat given Turkey and Iran a further incentive in their recent warming of ties.

As we have seen with Turkey, decades old problems will not disappear with a continuation of out-dated policies. Tehran must embrace the Kurds as a key component of their landscape and not continuously as a threat due to ethnic and sectarian differences.

With the might of the Turkish military on the one side and the Iranian forces on the other, the Kurdish region is somewhat caught in the middle and in a tenuous position. It relies on both powers heavily for economic and political prosperity but the at the same time its land cannot be used as a board for Iranian and Turkish military games.

Even with Iranian military commanders claiming that Iranian security forces took control of three bases and inflicted heavy losses on PJAK rebels, the end game does not change. Neither the PKK nor PJAK is here to go away anytime soon. Iran needs more comprehensive measures to deal with its internal problems and the US and European powers should play their part in embracing increased rights for the Kurds and condemning Iranian aggression.

The KRG leadership must continue to strongly denounce any incursion into their territory. The Kurdistan Region aims to become a formidable regional power in its own right and must at a minimum not succumb to been used as pawns for the agenda of their neighbours against their respective Kurdish populations.

The wider message is simple. The Kurds are here to stay and have every right to live in peace, freedom and prosperity as their Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian or Turkish counterparts.

Turkey and Iran has worked hard to pressure the Iraqi Kurds into conflict with the PKK and PJAK through their baseless political mind games. PKK and PJAK are not and never have been Iraqi Kurdish issues. They are both the by-product of years of oppression and denial of rights in both respective countries.

The KRG leadership must stand firm against Turkish or Iranian bullying but crucially provide diplomatic support for their Kurdish brethren. The Kurds were divided not through choice but by brute force. A Kurd is no different whether in Syria, Turkey or Iran.

The Kurds in Iraq must not be weary of conceding relations with Iran by taking a firm stance.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc.

Demonstration law must regulate not prevent a fundamental human right

Leave a reply

The crux of democracy is the overlying freedom of choice and existence of an individual and a system of government that is owned and controlled by the majority. The origins of the word democracy are derived from Greek, meaning “the people to rule” or “ruled by the people”. Therefore the simplest implication of the word democracy is the notion of power to the people.

On this basis, the ability of the people to openly express their views and organize protests or demonstrations is a fundamental part of modern society and the democratic principles that underpin effective governance.

As such whether in an election, via a petition or indeed a demonstration, the primary concept is the ability of the people to be heard.

Many of the freedoms expressed today, especially in European countries renowned for democracy, have come as a consequence of the desire and willingness of ordinary people to stand up especially at passages of times when many subjects were taboo, including woman rights and rights of workers.

Many laws and legislative measures have been introduced as a result of “people power”. Once the very people that elect governments come flooding to the streets in great numbers, in any true democracy no legislative power can ignore such a compelling message from its inhabitants.

In the Middle East, where democracy has been a longtime taboo, the ability to stage demonstrations are often forbidden and repressed with great force and where allowed to be formed are severely restricted.

In the Kurdistan Region, after years of repressive rule under a totalitarian regime, a fledgling democracy has taken shape that can serve as a symbol of tolerance in the region. However, while the current form of democracy is a milestone achievement, it is far from perfect with some accusing the ruling parties of curtailing the freedom of expression.

In this regard, it was somewhat unsurprising that the government received a backlash with the passing of the new law around the staging of demonstrations (Regulating Demonstration Bill). Although, the bill was met with resistance by some quarters of parliament particularly the Goran movement, it was essentially passed by the sheer numbers of the KDP and PUK in the assembly.

There has been growing disgruntlement in sections of Kurdish society, seeking greater reform and more transparency in government. Amidst such prevailing skepticism, the exact basis for the new demonstration law that has been passed has become murky and subject to misinterpretation.

For an affective understanding of this new bill, the question of why is a demonstration law is needed and what it is intended to achieve needs to be adequately understood. Any reservation from opposition party’s aside, regardless of the democratic basis of the right of the people to protest and be heard, any democratic principle still needs a framework and a measure of regulation.

This notion of control should not be intended to “prevent” but to regulate, which for example is the case in the UK. The reason is simple – allowing and facilitating the freedom of expression of a group of people, is finely balanced against ensuring and maintaining the daily freedoms of the greater sections of society.

The underlining basis of a demonstration is peaceful protesting. Unfortunately, sentiments can sometimes spill into aggressive and violent behavior, attracting the headlines for the wrong reasons but above all creating danger to the greater community.

Therefore, in the vast majority of Western countries, while protesting is a fundamental right, they do not necessarily have an exclusive hand to act, organize and proceed as they deem fit. For example, under the Human Rights Act in the UK, protestors have a great deal of freedom to protest but under the firm basis of “Non-violent direct actions” which has the clear objective of ensuring that the people can get their message across without the proceedings descending into violence, bloodshed or anti-social behavior. Therefore protests must not harm the person, group or element that is the subject of the protests, or the security forces and rival protestors.

One of the major concerns around the passing of the demonstration law is that it will allow the government to manipulate the bill to prevent demonstrations or restrict protests as a form of self protection. A new requirement means that any demonstrations that are intended to be held must be authorized by the government.

In most Western countries, depending on the nature and extent of the protests, some actions require consent from the authorities but no consent can ever be denied on the mere basis that the authority does not want you to speak out.

The current sentiment towards the Kurdish government is not strictly that a law to control demonstrations is undemocratic or a new phenomenon in a modern society, but owed largely to the distrust felt in sections of Kurdish society towards the ruling parties.

It is this general cynicism that needs to be addressed, with the ruling alliance providing the necessary assurances to its people. In this light, time will tell what demonstrations are held or prevented or how restrictive this bill will become in practice. The grounds for any rejection must be clear and on the basis of safeguarding the greater community, preventing violence or damage to property. The law itself as it stands is not an obstacle to democracy but the danger is the manipulation of this law to suit a particular side.

In most of the major European countries, organized marches by the people need approval and protests can be disbanded or disallowed from been run if they are deemed to incite racial hatred or against the interests of the greater public.

In this light, the Kurdish government must work transparently around the demonstration law and allow external monitors to assess any cases where demonstrations are rejected.

The passing of the bill has already placed the ruling government in a precarious position. Demonstrations against this bill have been held that have ironically already broken the law. It also begs the question of how the government would react if unlawful demonstrations are subsequently carried out.

Such is human nature that spontaneous protests can never be avoided and sometimes gatherings or rallies occur or gather pace depending on the sensitivity of an event or issue without any prior planning or intention.

Any heavy handed responses by the security forces will only backfire, whilst at the same time they cannot be seen to be idle while a law is been violated.

Clearly, the overlying message to the Kurdish government is not that some measures they undertake are necessarily undemocratic but that the people still require assurances and that the region will expand on democratic values and evolve and not contract.

The need for the government to reform and implement a more effective form of democracy is still very much an ongoing objective, in order for the region to grow, prosper and become a showcase for effective lines of communication between the government and the people who select the government to serve them.

Kurdish politicians must be in touch and be seen amongst the ordinary people, in the very quarters where the people go about their day-to-day lives. After all, it is down to the people to express their voice and vote but ultimately down to the politicians to listen and deliver.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc.

Discussion on UN decision on Kosovo Independence

Leave a reply

The murky distinction between the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity – As UN rules Kosovar unilateral independence legal, a new precedent is set for nationalist struggles

The secession of Kosovo from Serbia concluded the bitter and bloody breakup of Yugoslavia. However, the onset of independence for Europe’s newest member of the family has been the most contentious.

Kosovo Albanians clearly suffered great atrocities under Serbian rule, leading to NATO intervention and UN protection thereafter. Despite strong opposition from a number of countries including Russia and China, Kosovar’s determination for statehood was undeterred resulting in a unilateral declaration of independence in February 2008.

Although, now recognised by over 69 UN member states, the issue of the legality of the Kosovar independence, facilitated with the support of its American and British allies, has stirred tensions and debate ever since; and crucially has initiated a sense of weariness for a number of countries with their own separatist headaches.

The recent ruling by the International Court of Justice, the first case of secession raised before the World Court, declared that Kosovo’s declaration of independence was in fact legal and did not contravene international law.

This was a highly significant development for Kosovo in its quest for full recognition and UN member status, but it also carries significant ramifications for future cases.

Key global powers in support of Kosovar’s rights have continuously pointed to the notion that Kosovo was a special case, that Serbia’s brutal campaign had forfeited their sovereignty over the province and, as a separate ethnicity, the Kosovar’s were free to choose not to reside with their Serbian counterparts.

However, no matter how this is masked, clearly a strong precedence has been set for nationalist struggles across the world. Furthermore, this is another demonstration of the stark double standards employed by western powers that plagues the notion of a new world order and the ideals of freedom and democracy that the West is desperately trying to promote.

Nowhere in the world is the case of Kosovo more significant than in Kurdistan. The similarities are striking. Ethnic Albanians have suffered under the hands of occupiers and dictatorships as have the Kurds. Albanian’s pose a minority in a number of countries, including Serbia, Macedonia and Greece as do Kurds in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey.

However, while Albanians may have suffered great crimes, their existence as a distinct ethnicity has never been denied and they have an independent state in the form of Albania. Not only was Kurdistan forcibly assimilated, but Kurds in Iraq suffered great campaigns of genocide under the noses of the West; and in Turkey they have never been officially recognised as having a separate identity.

To date, the Kurds still form the largest stateless nation in the world. This begs the question of the criteria for judging the merit of nationalist struggles and just who has the authority to determine and endorse such moves.

Clearly in the case of Kosovo, many countries still refuse to recognise their independence including the veto-holding powers of Russia and China. It was the ardent support of the US and key EU states that was all that was necessary.

The concept of self-determination is not new and was first championed by the then US president Woodrow Wilson after World War I. From colonialism and the fall of great empires, suddenly appeared numerous new countries in the international arena.

Even today, nationalist struggles rage in many countries including Russia, Spain and Georgia.

The issue of self-determination is evidently complicated as it in direct contrast to the principle of territorial integrity. By international law, nations have the right to full sovereignty and the enforcement of their borders but as highlighted in the past, international law can be misconstrued and misapplied based on the strategic goals of global players.

The Kurds, like numerous other nations that encompassed the Ottoman Empire, were afforded the right of self-determination under the Treat of Sevres but somewhat ironically within a few short years, the Kurds were scrubbed-off the map by the Treaty of Lausanne.

No Kurd was ever consulted about the division of its land or its people and the new borders that they were suddenly bound to. This was the decision of global powers and regional actors on the chessboard who held the Kurdish population as inferior pawns that could be ruled and submerged. Once great amounts of oil were discovered in Kurdistan this was the final nail in its quest for statehood as it’s carve up intensified and powers sought to reap the benefits of its immense wealth.

Ironically, although the Kurds have steadily risen in prominence and strategic standing in recent years, any notion of independence would gain no support from the US or other major powers due to geopolitical considerations. By the same token, it is doubtful whether it was purely legal considerations that saw the US support the secession of Kosovo or if it was strategic reasons.

More ironically, the same geopolitical constraints that the West allude to in justifying why Kurdish independence would create instability and a nightmare scenario was created by the West themselves.

Evidently, anarchy would ensue if the principle of self-determination was vaguely applied to all cases. This would amount to great global instability and further bloodshed. However, self-determination can only be applied based on its own merits and not double standards.

The basis of any nationalist struggle is primarily ethnicity. Any established nation has the right to unmolested existence, to decide its own affairs and to express cultural freedom. No nation has the right to submerge, rule-over or deny outright another nation.

These fundamental principles are one of the main reasons why the League of Nations and later the UN was created and why many wars have been waged against rogue regimes and dictators trespassing international charters.

No case demonstrates the lack of international standards than that of Turkey. With a highly nationalistic driven constitution and an oppressive military existence, the Kurds were historically sidelined or merely referred to as “Mountain Turks” and even today do not enjoy key rights granted by UN charters.

The best judge of a nationality is history, culture and heritage. Kurds have existed in the areas that they reside for thousands of years and have been recognised as a distinct nationality throughout history, with their own language, culture, customs and traditions.

In the example of Turkey, the Kurds could benefit immensely from a peaceful and prosperous coexistence with their Turkish counterparts and with it possibly the carrot of EU membership. However, this unison by the virtue of international law must be based on voluntary association, democratic rights, culture freedoms and an equal status.

It was highly significant that Turkey was one of the first countries to recognise Kosovar independence. It was also its flagship of Turkish Cypriot rights that led to the invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and the establishment of a state in Northern Cyprus that was widely condemned.

The Turkish Cypriot right to self-rule and peaceful existence was the vehicle for Turkish intervention. However, what the Turkish Cypriots desire is hardly clear given that they became outnumbered by Turkish settlers brought by the Turkish government.

The principle of “self-determination” is best explained in the words itself. However, by clear contradiction, it is still obvious that owing to the colonial mentalities of Western powers, it is not “self” that determines such a principle but “others”.

As the old English saying goes “what is good for the goose is good for gander”.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

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

Barzani’s landmark visit to Ankara symbolises new historical passage between Kurds and Turkey

Leave a reply

Three years is a long-time in any part of the world, but can be equal to a lifetime in the Middle East. Although, economic ties have been relatively strong between Turkey and the Kurdistan Region for many years, political ties became strained and contentious as Iraqi Kurds assumed a new “official” role in the new Iraq and with it considerable power and strategic standing.

The visit this week of Kurdistan Region President Massoud Barzani to Ankara, the first since the US invasion in 2003, bears significant ramifications for both Turkey and Kurds all over the region and not just in Iraq.

For a long while it seemed that Turkey would remain obstinate on old mentalities and was ever-reluctant to recognise the new reality across the border, even as other major powers flocked to open consulates, assume bi-lateral trade ties and build political cooperation.

While Kurdistan has been affectively autonomous since 1991 and not 2003, Turkey could live with that reality as to a great extent the region was under a firm eye, strategically confined and required support of Turkey.

However, its one thing acknowledging a reality behind closed doors and another openly accepting and recognising that reality. This is Turkey after all – a country that for many decades denied even the existence of the Kurds, let alone the establishment of a Kurdistan Region and who has fought deadly battles against the PKK Kurdish rebels since 1984.

Witnessing first-hand what initially appeared to be the materialisation of their greatest fear in 2003 would not have been easy to stomach. Especially as images of Peshmerga forces storming triumphantly into Mosul and Kirkuk in April 2003 under the Kurdistan flag, were flashed around the world.

Turkey has long feared greater Kurdish autonomy or even outright independence. This anxiety would have hardly been eased as Iraqi Kurds assumed key positions in Baghdad, negotiated historical terms in the constitution and became invaluable allies to a U.S. that had been stuck in a quagmire and short of genuine partners.

As Turkey has plunged deeper into its battle with the PKK in recent years, hawks in the Turkish military squarely pointed the finger at Barzani for sympathising and even aiding the Kurdish rebels.

Turkish military commanders openly threatened to invade the region many times and in 2009 decided to do just that. This was probably the lowest point in the post-2003 ties between the Kurds and Turkey. Some Turkish politicians and especially the ultra nationalist military elite were astonished at what they saw as Barzani overstepping his power and daring to “stand up” to them, after heated exchanges over the PKK and status of oil-rich Kirkuk.  After all, how could any Kurdish “tribal” leader have the audacity to remain outspoken and firm against the mighty force of Turkey? A proud nation built on strong sense of nationalism and enormous ethnic pride.

For Turkey, it has simply been a case that whether you publicly accept a reality or not, that reality is still true. An internationally recognised Kurdistan Region exists and is enshrined in official legislature. The existence of a Kurdistan is no longer a taboo, even if it continues to be a common one in Turkey, but a reference to an internationally recognised political entity. The Kurdistan flag is no longer a symbol of “separatism” but a symbol of a federal region. The Kurdish language is not only spoken but is now one of the official languages of the Iraqi state. The Peshermrga forces do not belong to political groups but are an official force of the Iraqi state. This list can continue and continue.

The overwhelming basis is that Turkey can ignore the new developments and this new reality to its own detriment. Closer to home, decades of conflict in the east has seen no gain but bloodshed for both Kurds and Turks.

Bound by age old principles and Kemalist foundations, Turkey seemed unwilling to waver from its historical stance. However, Kurds are a fundamental part of the Turkish state and key partners in the development and prosperity of Turkey. A Turkish drive for political reform and a new roadmap to resolve its age old dilemma is the best chance in many decades of a new true social basis that will allow Turkey to flourish economically and politically.

More importantly, Turkey has come to realise that Iraqi Kurds will not forgo strong ties with Ankara even at the expense of ties with Baghdad. The bustling trade between Turkey and Kurdistan reached a remarkable $9 billion in 2009. This will only increase further. Iraqi Kurds rely heavily upon Turkey for a number of strategic reasons and ironically the Turks are by far the best partners the Kurds can muster. Turkey is their door to Europe, to economic prosperity and the regions vision of becoming a de facto part of Europe.

Equally, the support of the Iraqi Kurds will no doubt help to finally resolve the PKK dilemma in Turkey. Turkish Kurds look eagerly for new job opportunities and development of their cities. With the much anticipated door to the EU opening sooner or later, the Kurds of Turkey can only gain by been a integral part of the Turkish picture and will benefit tremendously from the strong ties with their Turkish brethren, as long as Ankara can finally free itself from age old taboos and embrace Kurdish ethnicity and culture as part of its official framework.

A peaceful, stable and flourishing region is not only good for Iraqi Kurds but an essential buffer and access point to the Gulf for Turkey. Kurds, who share similar political and religious ideology, are just what Turkey needs against the ever changing picture in the Middle East and growing Shiite power both in Baghdad and Tehran. Ankara’s hand in Erbil will ultimately ensure equilibrium against Tehran’s hand in Baghdad.

Its time to realise that Kurds and Turks are natural allies and the best of strategic partners. Why create enemies of each other, when clearly both in the present and the future, they must both work hand in hand for mutual prosperity and protection?

Kurdistan Region can be an affective arm for Turkey, and form a de facto confederation. Iraqi Kurdistan has immense potential, hunger and oil. The much touted Nabucco pipeline will be the glue between both sides of the borders.

Such a partnership, which only recently seemed far from an ideal match after growing friction, is slowly unfolding into a partnership that will not only take Turkey and Kurdistan forward, but will be a momentous and landmark gain for the greater Middle East region, starved of positive developments and stability.

For Kurds and Turks, it has become very evident that it’s a case of our differences are small, but our similarities are huge.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.

As kingmakers, ensuring the right king is made is paramount to the Kurds

Leave a reply

Months of painstaking preparations for the national elections and weeks of the controversial counting of the votes are finally over. However, before the Iraqi political bandwagon ponders a breather, the real work starts now.

The final election results encapsulated an enthralling, tense and close contest. This was a crucial milestone for the new Iraq and even more so as all sides of the Iraqi ethno-sectarian mosaic turned out in good proportion, striving to make a difference from years of frustrating post-war turmoil, instability, sectarianism and lacklustre living standards. The elections provide hope of a declined sectarian divide in Iraqi politics and the possibility of the establishment of the first all encompassing coalition in Iraq housing the embittered groups.

In reality however, the process of government forming will prove protracted and could well linger for many months longer.

None will be more weary of the future political shape and eager to strike the right alliance than the Kurds. The Kurds will likely be kingmakers again, as the only other distinct ethnic group with power, their support to the remaining Arab political rivals in Iyad al-Allawi, Nouri al-Maliki and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim will hold crucial sway to surpassing the all-important 163 seat mark to form government.

As such, their role as “kingmakers” carries enormous responsibility on Kurdish aspirations and the Kurdish people. Been kingmaker is one thing, ensuring the right king is “made” is another.

In the aftermath of the last elections, Kurds were in a more powerful bargaining position than in today. After a Sunni boycott and a larger allocation of seats per population for the Kurdistan region, the Kurds decided to side with Maliki’s Shiite alliance in what initially seemed to good affect.

The Kurds were able to assume the posts of President, Foreign Minister and Vice Prime Minister. However, as the months and years rolled by, while the Kurds dug their heels in at times to the desired affect and many bills reflected Kurdish jockeying, the key disputes and national goals of the Kurds become increasingly distant and stagnant in resolution.

As Maliki’s influence and credibility slowly rose, especially in light of improving security conditions from the brink of civil war, the Kurds who supported Maliki at key times, become increasingly despondent with the more hard-line government stance and Baghdad’s laboured approach to the implementation of key articles of the constitution.

However, this should not come as a great surprise. While Maliki may hardly be first choice for a Kurdish partner based on the tenuous political marriage, Allawi is hardly the flavour of the month either. The same foot-dragging was employed by Allawi as Interim Prime Minister of Iraq prior to the 2005 legislative elections, which saw slow progress on Kurdish-sided disputes. The growing nationalist stance of Allawi’s al-Iraqiya group, particularly concerning Kirkuk and other disputed territories is hardly an ice breaker either. Although a secular Shiite, the tough nationalistic tone of Allawi and his non-sectarian basis saw his alliance as a new logical platform for the Sunni voice.

This places the Kurds into a difficult predicament, which in theory has been made more challenging by the structure of the elections this time around. Firstly, disunity within Kurdish ranks with Change Movement (Gorran) running on a separate list to the KDP and PUK, potentially cost the Kurds a number of seats. Gorran won over sixty-thousand votes in Kirkuk but ultimately did not meet the necessary threshold to gain seats.

The other crucial factor was the Kurdistan Region receiving a modest rise in the number of national assembly seats which were increased from 275 to 325, with the rest of the south picking up the majority of the allocation of extra seats. Furthermore, bigger Sunni turnouts in the north and north-western provinces also contributed to a dilution of Kurdish power in these mixed provinces, which they had assumed almost by default in the last elections.

Kurdish support should not come cheap, and if its means that the coalition building process drags on for another few months, then so be it. It is better for Kurds to get firm and written guarantees this time around even if they are perceived as stalling the political process and pressured by Baghdad and Washington to “back down”, rather than to wait another four years for the resolution of key issues impacting the Kurdistan Region to be further sidelined and become stale.

The Kurdish alliance won 43 seats with other Kurdish parties claiming another 14 seats in total. The voting was generally well-spread with no party coming through as clear winners. Ultimate victors were Allawi’s al-Iraqiya group with 91 seats but this was only two more than Maliki’s State of Law coalition. As a result, this means that the permutations for coalitions are more ajar and thus the negotiation and bartrering process will be as delicate as ever.

Certainly, marginalising any bloc will come with its own headache, while attaining a broad reconciliation will still prove to be a bitter pill to swallow for the new Iraq.

Adding to the heated mix is the tricky allocation of the key ministerial posts. While the Kurds enjoyed a fair share of key positions in the past government, distribution of key posts to appease Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni sentiments will not be so straightforward. The running for the next President, held by Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani, is already gathering heat with some Arab sides proclaiming that the President as a representative of the Iraqi nation should be an Arab. However, more crucially, the Kurds need to focus on positions that will ultimately hold influence and sway within Iraq itself. For example, the posts of Ministry of Oil or the Interior Ministry will be a lot more beneficial to the Kurds than positions that are high on paper but may do little to directly favour Kurdish interests in reality.

Meanwhile, as credible as the newfound opposition is to the Kurdistan Region, this will almost certainly have negative connotations if Kurds enter Baghdad divided. With the rise of Arab nationalist parties, Kurds can ill afford disharmony on the national stage. Disputes over article 140, national budget, status and funding of Peshermarga forces and not to mention the oil sharing, are only going to get fiercer before any resolution becomes more likely.

Attempts by Kurdistan President Massaud Barzani to ensure a united front in Baghdad, and pledges by Gorran leaders to maintain unity on Kurdish national issues is an absolute minimum if Kurds expect any fruit from any prospective alliance they strike.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

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

The democratic will of the people cannot be ignored

Leave a reply

As a tense political climate ensues in Kurdistan ahead of the critical national elections in March, the notion of change and evolution must be embraced, however, at a crucial historical juncture the Kurds must be careful to guide their region towards a new dawn and not a tainted past.

There is nothing wrong with change, if it is in the right direction” – Winston Churchill

Whilst democracy is a fledgling phenomenon in Iraq and not without its fair share of deficiencies and impediments, it is nevertheless a remarkable milestone and the national elections of 7th March 2010 provide a chance for millions of Iraqis to be heard.

It is down to the people to voice their vote but ultimately down to the politicians to deliver.

Iraq faces a tense battle on many fronts as people eagerly await the electoral result. However, the notion of “change” must surely be at the pinnacle of any political manifesto if the next 5 years is to be successful.

This change comes in a number of forms. Same foot dragging over constitutional issues, budget and resource sharing, lack of reconciliation, chauvinist mentalities of the past or a government who those not want to truly embrace democratic values, compromise and critically the voice of the very people they have been voted to serve then Iraq can be guaranteed one thing – the next 5 years will be as unproductive, tiresome and problematic as ever.

Without the need for a greater change on many political levels, the same thorny issues put on ice over the past five years such as resolving disputed boundaries will lie in stalemate in 5 years time. Or worse still, without a flexible and all encompassing democratic apparatus, violent resolution of these issues.

New political horizon in Kurdistan

Remarkable progress on political, economic and social levels has been made in less than two decades since the liberation of Kurdistan. However, Kurdistan now finds itself at a critical crossroad.

One that can truly propel it to a new standing both within Iraq and the Middle East, or one that will only induce echoes of past infighting, disunity and bureaucratic governance.

The progress of the Change Movement or Gorran from literally the backdoor to a major opposition as a result of the Kurdistan parliamentary elections last July, where it won a credible 25 seats or 23.57% of the vote, speaks volumes.

The basis for this new political horizon is in essence revealed in the name itself – “change”. This motion is reflected in the millions of Kurds, who demand changes to living standards, political reform and more transparency.

However, change itself is a loose word. Whether Gorran is a direct rival of the PUK only or is a viable and affective alternative voice for all of Kurdistan remains to be seen.

The onus is on Gorran to push through the very ideal of change people have identified with them. This means that the plan for change needs to be structured, coordinated and implemented. The ruling elite in the KDP and PUK may embrace a common desire for change, but this change must be shepparded in the right direction and for results that will benefit the greater Kurdistan region both internally and in Baghdad.

A new direction

A popular demand for change and the new political competitiveness should not mean disunity and crippling of Kurdish national interests. All Kurdish politicians have been elected by Kurds to serve Kurds.

There is nothing wrong with internal political jostling or heated campaigning, but such a destructive atmosphere in the form of media campaigns, grave insults and accusations, harsh exchange of words between leaders and violence guarantees only one thing – a big smile on the face of Kurdish adversaries.

Uncertainty of electoral outcome

There is fierce political jockeying in Kurdistan with more at stake than ever. The PUK dominance particularly in Sulaimanyia and Kirkuk has been challenged and the national elections will only reaffirm the views of the people.

With the new open-candidate list system serving to potentially further influence the PUK power sharing with KDP, there has been a lot of media coverage around the “demise” of the PUK.

Talk of such a decline is premature but one thing is certain – democracy practiced in a fair and just way does not lie. The results are derived from the opinions and choice of the people and it is the will and choice of such people that must be protected and placed first.

This is the very essence of a healthy democracy and facilitating change in the right direction. If the bar has been raised as a result of the new political climate in Kurdistan, then the onus is on the likes of the KDP and PUK to raise the stakes, adopt reform and change the minds of the people. Any political system where politicians can rest on their laurels, only guarantees slow progress, corruption and lack of services to the people.

By the same token, the Gorran movement becoming a major force in Kurdistan is only a starting point. There is no compulsion in a healthy democracy and just as easily as millions can vote for you, millions can vote against you if their expectations are not met or if political promises are not fulfilled.

The KDP and PUK hierarchies must ensure the protection of such political parties and ensure that battle is done in the ballot boxes and not on the streets.

Kurdish role in Baghdad

Although Gorran and the Kurdistan Alliance will effectively campaign on two separate lists in the national elections, this does not mean it should be to the detriment of Kurdistan.

The overall strategic goals of the Kurds must be strengthened and not undermined as a result of the new Kurdish political awakening.

This does mean that the Gorran can now use its leverage to pressure the KDP and PUK into change or to introduce elements of its philosophies, which is only natural if you muster such a significant portion of votes. However, this should not mean that personal and political vendettas should see this new climate turn into a Kurdish nightmare.

This is about the Kurdish people and Kurdistan not supporting one group over another or turning this into a social or dynasty battle in Kurdistan.

The Kurds will once again have a kingmaker role in the next government, and their support for any coalition in Baghdad must see Kurds attain firm guarantees for their strategic goals in return.

Tense climate in Kurdistan

The recent heated debates and walkout in the Kurdish parliament, violent friction in the Sulaimanyia province and the anger over the alleged labelling of the Peshmerga forces by a Gorran MP as a militia, threatens to create a political and social divide in Kurdistan.

Such divide in the 90’s resulted in civil war and effectively meant that two Kurdistan administrations existed.

Status of Peshmerga forces

For Kurds, the word Peshmerga is etched in Kurdish folklore. Without the sacrifices and bravery of the thousands of such individuals who fought against repression and occupation, Kurdistan would never be where it is today.

Any labelling of the Peshmerga as a kind of militia is not only disrespectful and out of tone of Kurdish political standards and revered heritage but will undoubtedly incite Kurdish sentiments ahead of elections. This is something we become accustomed to hear from Baghdad, whose view of the Peshmerga as a militia is only to undermine the force and serve to weaken an element they see as a direct threat.

However, by the same token, politicisation of the forces should be discouraged at all costs. They should be embraced as a national Kurdish army to serve and protect all of Kurdistan. This is one example of where political polarisation of Kurdistan must change.

Uncertainty over the results of ballots and political anxiety should be seen as a sign of a healthy democracy. Politicians should fret over their performance at the polls and not walk into parliament via a red carpet.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.

Western ironies discernible as Kurds rejoice at justice

Leave a reply

Almost six years since the liberation of Iraq, mass graves and symbols of past atrocities committed by the former regime are still uncovered regularly. Ironically, while the second Gulf War has been overshadowed by the seemingly elusive quest to unearth weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion, with rampant debate in the UK at the current time with regards to the “legality” of the war and lack of evidence as part of the ongoing Iraq Enquiry, people are forgetting that the greatest weapon of mass destruction was Saddam Hussein and specifically for the Kurds his key henchman, Ali Hassan al-Majid or ‘Chemical Ali’ as he became notoriously dubbed.

What other systemic weapon could do destroy over 4000 villages, kill over 180,000 people in less than a year alone, amass a network of torture and repression and devastate the lives of a whole nation?

As we rejoice at justice for Kurdistan, with al-Majid executed, we realise that no amount of death of any barbarians can ever redeem the plight of thousand of innocent civilians whose only crime was to be a Kurd. However, this justice severed in a way that he seldom provided to any of his victims draws this dark chapter to a close.

The new prominence of the Kurdistan Region is a testimony of the Kurdish refusal to lose hope and never accept the cruelty of its occupiers.  We shall be forever grateful for the US liberation but must never lose perspective.

Who can forget that it was the west that provided the chemical weapons of the Halabja atrocity? At the time of the Halabja massacre, much of the West blamed Iranian agents. Saddam Hussein was a monster encouraged and empowered by Western powers for the purpose of their strategic goals at the time. The least they could do was rid the country of their mess. It may have come years late and at an immense human cost, but the Baathist regime was finally toppled, yet elements in the West still argue that there was no basis for war!

What proof do western intuitions wish to seek about capability of the Baathist regime? Heaps of rubble still dots the Kurdish landscape where villages once stood. While al-Majid is dead, thousands of Halabjan’s suffer in the aftermath of the chemical gas attacks with birth defects, illness and suffering. The affects of weapons of mass destruction did not die with the 5000 innocent civilians of Halabja, they are in affect even today.

Halabja was the highlight of Baathist Anfal (or “Spoils of War”) campaign. It was designed as a “final solution” to the Kurdish headache and remarkably al-Majid brazenly claimed that he would not have stopped if he was not “constrained” by Saddam. How merciful of Saddam. The ironies are simply endless.

The Anfal operation was a chilling echo of Adolf Hitler’s campaign to exterminate the Jews, with al-Majid the personification of Heinrich Himmler of the Nazi machine. Illustrating the merciless nature of the campaign in Kurdistan, even animals did not slip the grasp of Baathist terror.

The execution of al-Majid makes the current bitter debate over barring of ex-Baathist from running in the national elections later this year even more interesting. The process should be evidently transparent and non-sectarian. However, US bartering, anxiety and running to resolve the issue is ironic. Undoubtedly, there are some individuals on the existing list that may have been barred with a hidden agenda in mind, but for some proven ex-Baathists who were the tools of Saddam’s barbaric orchestra, the notion that they have been endured a miscarriage of justice is even more ironic.

This is not to assume that all such figures were directly responsible for actions or policies of a dictatorial regime, and the process of vetting candidates must be done with utmost sensitivity and caution. 

It is conveniently overlooked that the “barred” list is not exclusively made up Sunni’s. This is only drummed up to induce a sectarian flavour to the dispute and thus snare the focus of the US. Many prominent Baathist in the Saddam apparatus were Shiites or even Kurds.

Although, the US now has a key stake in Iraq and has made recent promises to their Kurdish allies over assistance in resolving ongoing disputes with Baghdad, Kurds need no reminders that the present reality is no prelude to any future status or standing.

As we mark a dawn in the Kurdish renaissance, let us never forget the immense sacrifice of thousands of Kurds. It was their passion, bravery and determination that stopped the Baathist machine and not the West.  Whilst Kurds are ever thankful for the ousting of Saddam which has allowed the recent remarkable progress to ensue, it is such Kurds who undertook the greatest sacrifice that should be heralded for this new chapter and the serving of justice.

Kurdistan may be dramatically changing and modernising, with fast growing expectations. Let’s work to see Kurdistan prosper but let us never take one eye off our past and the scarring this has inflicted.

Al-Majid maybe be dead, but beware many other al-Majid’s can be created if we rest on our laurels. Even the deadliest of plants or flowers still start from a seed, which only requires watering (in the case of politics, ideological following). As long as the seed exists, the plant may well come to fruition one day.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

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