OpEdNews
May 14,
2007
Kurdish
Disagreements Within the Autonomous Region
By Zola
Kurdish Disagreements Within the
Autonomous Region
It is worth noting the article by Mr.
Michael Gunter of the Jamestown Foundation
entitled "Intra-Kurdish Disputes in Northern
Iraq". If we want to start off with problems
with Mr. Gunter's thesis in the article we
might begin with the title as a start. The
Kurdish Auonomous Region is indeed made up
of northern Iraq. It is indeed currently
represented in the currently constituted
government of Iraq. However, the disputes
that Mr. Gunter is referring to appear to be
singularly those impacting on the Kurdish
nation and people. The use of
"intra-Kurdish" in the title is hardly
necessary unless there is some underlying
denial of the national identity of Kurds. It
would seem a headline could more
appropriately been "Kurdish Disagreements
within the Autonomous Region". It certainly
would have been a more simple way of
acknowledging that there are political
differences that exist, as they do in any
government. It would have also had the
advantage of starting from the same premise
as the Kurdish people in addressing them.
One worries when one sees political forces
in the US move so far away from the Kurdish
people and begin to act like strangers.
There is certainly no shortage of
experiences in the past where this has
happened. This in itself establishes a
certain skepticism in regards to the
article's thesis and the policy proposals
that would flow from it. The maintenance of
a strong centralized Baghdad government
appears to be the underlying motivation of
Baker, and Gunter. Continuing to bank on
this proposition is a no-gainer and is a
policy that is fraught with its own
consequences in the region.
Mr. Gunter proposes a one minister cabinet
for each post as a definition for a "unified
government". It is apparent that Mr. Gunter
doth presume a bit too much, as he works to
define what Kurdish self-government needs to
be. There are many complexities in the
existing political reality that the KRG has
worked to address in its structure and its
external relations with nations in the
region. This particular issue appears on the
surface to be simply an implementation of
proportional representation internally that
enable input by various Kurdish parties.
This is by no means something that is easy
to extract the significance to at this time.
Neither is it a particularly pertinent
point, unless one wishes to create discord
between Kurdish parties where there is
currently an agreed-upon working relation. I
don't think I need to tell PUK or KDP how
they can best facilitate the common effort
towards national recognition. I am sure
there are many divisions and differences
that arise in the course of governing. But,
it is worth disregarding Mr. Gunter's
objections to a lack of a unified government
at this point if there is some demonstrated
effectiveness to the governing of the
Kurdish people as a result. Even Mr. Gunter
concludes this by saying in concluding the
paragraph:" Given the divisions between the
KDP and PUK, the quasi-federal arrangements
institutionalized by having two separate
KRGs in the past and remnants of this
situation in the new unified KRG may serve
the Iraqi Kurds better than a forced unified
government." In that context there remains
more questions that arise in regards to the
intent of the objection in the first place.
The recent dispute between Pres. Barzani and
the Turkish military was raised in this
article to try and demonstrate a certain
conflict between Presidents Barzani and
Talibani.
One thing that can be said is threat the
positions inherently raise this conflict and
by itself it is no profound demonstration of
fratricide within the Kurdish nation. Both
Presidents exercised their powers granted to
them in a responsible manner and neither
violated any international laws, treaties or
undermined Kurdish sovereignty as a result
of their actions and words. Missing in Mr.
Gunter's article is the fact that Turkish
forces on the border have been increased in
addition to the rhetoric of the Turkish
generals. This does not lend itself to the
belief that the issue is one created by
Pres. Barzani for his own purposes. Turkey's
lack of recognition of the Kurdish Regional
Government, or President Barzani, will have
nothing to do with the matter of Kurdish
independence in the long run. As it stands
now, it is merely a continuation of a
Turkish national policy of denying any
national, political or cultural rights of
the Kurdish peoples in the region. On the
other hand, the violation of the territory
by Turkish troops needs to be clearly
presented as an action with consequences of
its own.
Mr. Gunter takes his next step by describing
demonstrations in Halabja, Sulamaniyah and
Irbil in 2006. The significance of the
characterization of the involvement of youth
would appear to raise questions in regards
to a certain alienation of youth from the
building of a Kurdish nation. By themselves
they certainly do not project a convincing
case for abandoning it. One is not surprised
at actions directed in regards to the supply
of fuel and electricity, but the burning of
the Halabja museum does raise questions
concerning the leadership or involvement of
other forces not committed to the Kurdish
peoples struggle. Unless there is something
about the Halabja museum that I am not privy
to the action appears to demonstrate an
aggressively anti-Kurd position as might
come from Baathists rather then other
Kurdish forces.
Next, Mr. Gunter presents a brief regarding
human rights violations within the Kurdish
Autonomous Region that are certainly put in
the context of the current conflicts and
activities south of them. By no means should
these matters not be addressed, but looking
at this in the context of how the writer has
unfolded a clear thesis that opposes Kurdish
autonomy or independence, these become
self-serving attempts to rally the public in
opposition to this cause.
The effort to demonstrate that the KRG is
not a representative government because it
has not declared independence jumps to the
other side of the argument in making its
case. Mr. Gunter appears bewildered that the
KRG has not declared independence in the
face of two unofficial referendums
demonstrating overwhelming support for
independence by the Kurdish people. The KRG
has functioned as it can function to date.
It has moved forward as it can move forward
to date. This neither negates the referenda
nor promotes the centralization of the
Baghdad government at the expense of the
Kurdish Autonomous Region and its people. It
merely is what it is: a recognition of the
legitimacy of the popular will of the
Kurdish people. The votes of the Kurdish
people have been cast and their unity and
direction has been put on the record for all
to see.
In regards to Kirkuk, Mr. Gunter appears to
believe that all the turmoil south of the
Autonomous Region would stay there if there
were no resolution of the issue of restoring
Kirkuk to its legitimate political context
that existed prior to Saddam's
displacements. "Since the failed uprisings
of 1991, the Iraqi government forcibly
expelled over 120,000 Kurds, Turkomans, and
Assyrians from government-controlled areas
of northern Iraq, most of them from Kirkuk
and the surrounding villages. Most of these
expulsions took place through an escalated
process of harassment by Iraqi government
officials, documented in an earlier Human
Rights Watch study:
Typically, families targeted for expulsion
would receive several threatening visits
from security personnel or Ba'th Party
officials. During those visits, the families
are pressured to take one or more of the
following steps: officially alter their
ethnic identity by registering as Arabs
instead of Kurds, Turkoman, or Assyrian, a
process known as “nationality correction;”
[sic] become members of the ruling Ba'th
Party; and/or join one of the various
militias formed by Saddam Hussein, including
the so-called Army of Jerusalem (Jaysh al-Quds).
Families with young men are particularly
harassed."
http://www.kerkuk-kurdistan.com/kerkukek.asp?ser=4&cep=9&nnimre=4154
It is indeed the height of hypocrisy to
propose that Kurds are responsible for
creating a problem when the Baathists were
the ones to take such draconian measures.
The historical record demonstrates the
validity of a corrective measure in regards
to Kirkuk and this corrective measure fits
the definition of the Kirkuk Referendum.
Finally, Mr. Gunter completes his article.
And proceeds to leave it hanging, with no
policy proposals, no recommendation for US
action and no evaluation of the national
project underway in southern Kurdistan.
Instead, it attempts to minimize the
significance of the current state of
relations between the PUK and the KDP as a
power conflict, nothing more, nothing less.
It would indeed be a tragedy if that proves
to be the case. But, there is leadership
that can make it otherwise. And, there is a
national will to see it turn out otherwise.
And there are centuries of history that have
manifested into a new realization for the
future. Of that, there can be no question.
Authors Bio: A former public school teacher
in Albuquerque, NM who wants to see real
change in his lifetime.
