Would Iraq be better off if it dissolved into three ethnic enclaves?
Posted by David Ignatius on August 1, 2006 6:46 PM
Readers’ Responses to Our Question (166)
By Mufid Abdulla :
Kurdistan: A viable state - II
KurdishMedia.com - By Mufid Abdulla
Part II
International law developed to deal with newly-arising states
The French monk Emeric Cruce (1590-1648) elaborated the idea of having representatives of all countries meet in one place to discuss their conflicts, so as to avoid war and to create more peace. He suggested this in his ëThe New Cyneasí (1623) and chose Venice as the selected city for all representatives to meet. He suggested that the Pope should preside over the meeting. Of course, during the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) this was not acceptable to the Protestant nations. He also said that armies should be abolished and called for a world court. Though his call to abolish armies was not taken seriously, Emeric Cruce does deserve his place in history - through his foresight that international organizations are crucial to solve international disputes. The statesmen of the time believed no nation could escape war, so they prepared for it. King Henry IVís chief Minister, the Duke of Sully, proposed the founding of an alliance of the European nations that was to meet to arbitrate issues and wage war, not between themselves but collectively against the Ottoman Turks, he called it the Grand Design, but it was never established.
Modern international law is often affirmed as the product of modern European civilization. The seafaring principalities of India established legal rules for ocean navigation and regional commerce. The Greek system of independent city-states bore a close resemblance to the contemporary nation state system. The Aetolian and Achaean leagues of the 3rd century BC represented early organisational efforts at international cooperation, and facilitated the development of arbitration as a dispute-settlement technique.
International law
International law is different from private international law. In its most general sense it consists of rules and principles of general application, dealing with the conduct of states and of international organizations, and with their relations. International law concerns the structure and conduct of states, international organizations, and, to a certain degree, multinational corporations and individuals. Public international law; regulates the relationship between states and international entities; regulates competing demand; and establishes the framework for predictable and agreed behaviour among parties. Private international law selects between conflicting municipal systems of law to regulate the relationship between persons, as defined both legally and naturally. The necessity for international law arose in the context of increased international communication, trade, and conflict.
The scope of international law
International law establishes the framework and the criteria for identifying states as the principal actors in the international legal system. The existence of a state presupposes control and jurisdiction over territory. International law deals with the acquisition of territory; state immunity; and the legal responsibility of states in their conduct with each other. The law is similarly concerned with the treatment of individuals within state boundaries. There is thus a comprehensive regime dealing with; group rights; the treatment of aliens; the rights of refugees; international crimes; nationality problems and human rights.
Furthermore, it generally includes; the important functions of the maintenance of international peace and security; arms control; the pacific settlement of disputes; and the regulation of the use of force in international relations. Even when the law is not able to stop the outbreak of war it has developed principles to govern the conduct of hostilities and treatment of prisoners. International law is also used to; govern issues relating to the global environment; global ëcommonsí such as; international waters; outer space; global communications, and world trade. Whilst municipal law is hierarchical or vertical, with the legislature enacting binding legislation. International law is horizontal, with all states being sovereign and theoretically equal. Because of this, the value and authority of international law is dependent upon the voluntary participation of states in its formulation, observance, and enforcement. Although there may be exceptions, most states enter into legal commitments with other states out of enlightened self-interest rather than adherence to a body of law that is higher than their own. As D. W. Greig notes, ëinternational law cannot exist in isolation from the political factors operating in the sphere of international relations. Traditionally, states were the sole subjects of international lawí.
The State and conflicts over international law
The 17th,18th and 19th centuries saw the growth of the concept of a ìnation -stateî, which comprised of nations controlled by a centralized system of government. The concepts of nationalism became increasingly important as people began to see themselves as citizens of a particular nation, with a distinct national identity. Until the beginning of the 20th century, relations between nation-states were dictated by Treaty - unenforceable agreements to behave in a certain way towards another state. Many people now view the nation-state as the primary unit of international affairs. States may choose to voluntarily enter into commitment under international law, but they will often follow their own counsel when it comes to an interpretation of their commitments. As the 20th century progressed, a number of violent, armed conflicts, including WW1 and WWII, exposed the weaknesses of a voluntary system of international treaties.
Many people feel that these modern developments endanger nation states by taking power away from state governments and ceding it to international bodies such as the U.N and the World Bank. Some scholars and political leaders have recently argued that international law has evolved to a point where it exists separately from the mere consent of states. There is a growing trend toward judging a stateís domestic actions in the light of international law and standards. A number of states, notably within the United Nations vehemently oppose this interpretation, maintaining that sovereignty is the only true international law and that states have free reign over their own affairs. Similarly, a number of scholars now discern a legislative and judicial process to international law that parallels such processes within domestic law. Opponents of this point of view maintain that states only commit to international law with express consent; have the right to make their own interpretations of its meaning; and that international courts only function with the consent of states because international law is a relatively new area of law; its development is uncertain and its relevance and propriety hotly disputed.
There are three primary sources of international law:
- International treaties law
- Custom law
- General principles of law
International treaty law is comprised of obligations that states expressly and voluntarily accept between themselves in treaties. Customary international law is derived from the consistent practice of states accompanied by opinio juris ie., the conviction of states that consistent practice is required by a legal obligation. Judgments of international tribunals as well as scholarly works have traditionally been looked to as persuasive sources for custom in addition to direct evidence of state behavior. Attempts to codify customary international law picked up momentum after the second world war with the formation of the International Law Commission (ILC) .Codified customary law is made the binding interpretation of the underlying custom by agreement through treaty. General principles of law are those commonly recognized by the major legal systems of the world. Certain norms of international law achieve the binding force of peremptory norms as to include all states with no permissible derogations. Legal principles common to major legal systems may also be invoked to supplement international law when necessary.
Interpretation of international law
Where there are disputes about the exact meaning and application of national laws, it is the responsibility of the courts to decide what the law means .In international law as a whole, there are no courts which have the authority to do this. It is generally the responsibility of states to interpret the law for themselves. Unsurprisingly this means that there is rarely agreement in cases of dispute.
Enforcement by States
The force of international law has always come from the pressure that states put upon one another to behave consistently and to honour their obligations. As with any system of law many violations of international law obligations are overlooked. If addressed, it is almost always purely through diplomacy, and the consequences upon an offending states reputation. Though violation may be common, in fact, states try to avoid the appearance of having disregarded international obligations. States may also unilaterally adopt sanctions against one another, such as the severance of economic or diplomatic ties, or through reciprocal action. In same cases, domestic courts may render judgement against a foreign state for an injury, though this is a complicated area of law where international law intersects with domestic law. States have the right to employ force in self-defence against an offending state that has used force to attack its territory or political independence. .
Enforcement by International bodies
States can also upon mutual consent, submit disputes for arbitration by the international court of justice, located in the Hague, Netherlands .The judgements given by the court in these cases are binding although it possesses no means to enforce its rulings. The court may give an advisory opinion on any legal question at the request of whatever body may be authorized by or in accordance with the charter of the United Nations to make
such a request.
History
Through the ages a code developed for relations and conduct between nations. Even when nations were at war, envoys were often considered immune to violence. The first formal attempts in this direction, which over time have developed into current international law, stem from the era of the Renaissance in Europe. In the Middle Ages, it had been considered the obligation of the church to mediate in international disputes. During the Council of Constance(1414) Pawel Wlodkowic - Rector of Jagiellonian University (Krakow, Poland), theologian, lawyer and diplomat - presented the theory that all, including Pagan nations have right to self-govern, to live in peace and possess their land. At the beginning of the 17th Century, several generalizations could be made about the political situation:
1. Self-governing, autonomous states existed.
2. Almost all of them were governed by monarchs.
3. Land, wealth, and trading rights were often the topics of wars between states.
For the last two decades Kurdish nationalism has remained more alive than at any other time in the history of the Kurdish struggle. Strategies to establish our own country never been far away. The slogan of an independent Kurdish state has never been relinquished. Sheik Ubadulla Shamziniís uprising spread throughout Kurdistan - comprising, Iranian Kurdistan and Ottoman Kurdistan, encompassing the region in 1880. Most of the Kurdish historians analysed this as one of the most powerful uprisings. Sheik Ubadulla Shamzini demanded the formation of a Kurdish state. The slogan of independence for the Arabís came later - (around) 1916, by Sharif of Mecca - with the help of the British. Even though, the Arab nation had the very first conferment in Paris they only managed to acquire the slogan of decentralisation rather than independence. The first Kurdish newspaper, ëKurdistaní - published in Cairo in 1898 - had as their main slogan an independent Kurdistan, and nothing less. The content of all their articles always adopted this principle.
Hadji Kadir Coie , the famous Kurdish poet, always advocated Kurdish rule, and independence for Kurdistan - he died in Istanbul 1897 - most of the time his poetry talked about a Kurdish state. In 1922 Sheik Mehmood created a Southern State of Kurdistan, for the first time we had our own stamps and a Kurdish cabinet. When Sheik Mehmood declared an independent Kurdistan he was sitting next to Captain Noel, British representative. In 1919, at the peace conference , Sharif Pasha gave a detailed report about Kurdish independence to the Alliance Powers .The Pact of Sever had chapters and sections (62.63,64) devoted to Kurdish independence, which has never been implemented. Qazi Mohamed formally proclaimed his Kurdish peopleís government on January 22, 1946 in Chwar Chira square, where the townís only two paved streets crossed. In attendance, as he raised the Kurdish flag, were Iranian tribal chiefs, KDP officials, three Soviet officers in a jeep with machine guns, and Barzani, soon to be seen decked out in a Soviet generalís uniform, with high boots and stiff shoulder straps. Therefore, we need to understand the concept of state, law, the regulations behind the state and national powers, and to analyse international law, underpinning the nation state. Finally, to enrich our essay by bringing very vivid examples of newly-built nation states throughout history.
The State
A state is a set of institutions that possess the authority to make the rules that govern the people - having internal and external sovereignty over a definite territory. Following Max Weberís influential definition, ëa state has a monopoly on legitimate violenceë. Hence the state includes such institutions as the armed forces, civil service or state bureaucracy, courts, and police. The actions of private justice or of private corporate armies, both characteristic of feudalism, are the symptoms in the modern world of a ìfailed stateî. For theorists of international relations, recognition of the stateís claim to independence by other states, enabling it to enter into international engagements, is key to the establishment of its sovereignty.
Although the term often refers broadly to all institutions of government or rule - ancient and modern - the modern state system bears a number of characteristics that were first consolidated in western Europe, beginning in earnest in the 15th century. In the late 20th century, the globalisation of the world economy, the mobility of people and capital, and the rise of many international institutions all combined to circumscribe the freedom of action of states. However, the state remains the basic political unit of the world, as it has been since the 16th Century. The state is therefore considered the most central concept in the study of politics, and its definition is the subject of intense scholarly debate. Political sociologists in the tradition of both Karl Marx and Max Weber usually favour a broad definition that draws attention to the role of the coercive apparatus.
Since the late 19th century, the entirety of the worldís inhabitable land has been parcelled up into states; earlier, quite large land areas had been either unclaimed or uninhabited ,or inhabited by nomadic peoples who were not organized as a state. Currently more than 200 states comprise the international community, with the vast majority of them represented in the United Nations. In casual usage, the terms îcountryî ìnationî and ìstateî are often used as if they were synonymous: but in a more strict usage they are distinguished.
In the socialist schools, the state is a special organization of force: it is an organization of violence for the suppression of some class. The exploiting classes need political rule to maintain exploitation, in the selfish interests of an insignificant minority against the vast majority of people. The exploited classes need political rule in order to completely abolish all exploitation. The proletariat needs state power, a centralised organisation of force, an organisation of violence, both to crush the resistance of the exploiters and to lead the enormous mass of the population -the peasants, the petty bourgeoisie, and semi-proletarians in the work of organising a socialist economy.
Country is the geographical area.
Nation designates a people. However, nationally and internationally there is confusion pertaining to what defines a state, in international law.
State refers to set of governing institutions with sovereignty over a definite territory.
State (law)
The term state has several meanings in law:
1. In private international law and conflict of laws, the state can refer to a well defined jurisdiction ,with its own set of laws and courts. This jurisdiction may either be a sovereign, independent state, or a part (state, province, territory, etc) of such a state.
2. In public international law, state most commonly refers to a sovereign state, which is the direct subject of international law.
Every state within meaning (2) above is a state. Within meaning (1) above, the reverse does not hold. .or example, the United States is a state under both definitions, but California is a state only under the first.
This article is primarily about the first definition:
For the purposes of public international law and private international law, a state is a defined group of people, living within defined territorial boundaries and more or less subject to an autonomous legal system exercising jurisdiction through properly constituted courts. The usage of the term state rather than nation and country, refers unambiguously to the legal government of a territory, rather than to its people or culture. However, the term ìcountryî is still sometimes used in this way; see for example section 4 of Domicile Act 1982 which defines ìcountryî as including any state, province or other territory that is, one of two or more territories that together form a country .
The civilized portion of the earth is divided up into certain units of territory in each of which a particular law proper to that territory alone prevails, and that territory is for legal purposes a unit. What determines the state? It has been seen that the existence of separate legal units within the dominions of a single sovereign state is in fact, the result of historical accidents. The use of the word state for this purpose is not universally accepted .Some countries and individual authors use country, territorial unit, law unit or law district. In the Australian federation, each state and territory is a law district. The choice of law-rule may select the law of a country that contains more that one legal system. There must be rules to determine which of the several possible laws might apply.
States with more than one legal system, such as Iraq
1. Where a state comprises several territorial units, each of which has its own rules of law in respect of contractual obligations, each territorial unit is to be considered as a country for the purposes of identifying the law applicable under this convention.
2. A state within which different territorial units have their own rules of law in respect of contractual obligations is not bound to apply this convention to conflicts solely between the laws of such units.
State and geography, politics, economics, sociology
For the purposes of disciplines such as geography ,politics, economics and sociology, it is appropriate to consider the world as divided into countries and because it is of little significance in those disciplines, simply to add that some of these countries may be federated or otherwise divided into regions or provinces. The focus is on the broad cultural patterns of political allegiance that arise by virtue of citizenship and nationality, the so called social contract is that the state, in its technical sense, will defend that interests of its citizens in return for the loyalty of its citizens.
The power to make law is an aspect of sovereignty ,but is does not follow that the law is the same throughout a single sovereignís territory. Differences may arise in two ways a) as new territory is added to old ,or b) as two countries are combined under a single sovereign. When new law is to be made ,the sovereign may legislate for only part of the territories either because the territory has been divided into separate units, each with their own legislative bodies, or because a single legislative body limitís a new law to only a portion of the territory. Public international law exists to provide a framework within which the relationship between sovereign nation states can be regulated.
Factors in the creation of a State
Law
Law is the set of rules or norms of conduct which forbid ,permit or mandate specified actions and relationships among people and organizations, the authority upon which legal rules rest and the extent to which they are formally codified varies between jurisdictions. But most legal systems profess to be engaged in an attempt to assure impartial treatment of those suspected of breaching the rules and to bring about justice. However, some argue that certain legal systems -such as those operating in dictatorships and monarchies - are inherently unjust because they afford majority power to the few. Law is typically administered through a system of courts in which judges preside. Most countries rely upon the police to enforce the law. Police officers most often must be professionally trained in law enforcement before they are permitted to act under the code law.
Civil law
In reference to legal traditions, civil law usually means a system of law which is codified and subsequently applied and interpreted by judges .
Customary law
Customary laws are systems of law that have evolved largely on their own within a given country and have been adapted to meet the needs of the particular culture. Note that customary law may also be relevant within jurisdictions following another legal tradition in fields or subfields or law where no legislative enactment exists. The only countries in the world today that use this legal system are Mongolia and Sri Lanka.
Religious law
Many religions contain a body of law - for example, Sharia in Islam and various forms of Canon law for different denominations of Christians. In some cases these are intended purely as individual moral guidance ,whereas in other cases they are intended and may be used as the basis for a countryís legal system. This can be in two ways:
A. In countries such as Kurdistan, the religious code of Islam is integral to the countryís legal system. In this case civic law is the religious law .Some countries ,where the state exists as a vehicle for a religion-based culture ,are known as theocracies, and historically run by kings.
B. In countries such as the United States ,there is no national religion. However, a religious heritage and cultural background is strongly influential in the formation of a legal system.
Dr Kamal Mazhar Ahmad: Every Kurd would love to see an independent homeland
KurdishMedia.com - By Mufid Abdulla
Dr Kamal Mazhar Ahmad, a well known Kurdish historian, who is visiting the UK for a short break, has kindly agreed to give an interview to KurdishMedia.com
Manchester (KurdishMedia.com) 23 September 2006: Russian socialist leaders claimed that one novel -ëMotherí - by Maxim Gorky, brought the October Revolution in Russia forward by 6 yearís. We have to ask ourselves what will be the impact of our historian, Professor Kamal Mazhar Ahmad on the Kurdish struggle and revolution, for example: ëKurdistan, in the years of the first world warí and the latest book ëKirkuk and the surrounding areaí. The man became the symbol of Kurdish history and is remembered for his devotion to his profession. We found him in Manchester, on a short visit to the UK. I am grateful for his time and for answering our questions.
MA: How can the Kurdish Diaspora write the history in a way that can be useful for future generations?
KMA: It is very important to pay attention to Kurdish history because Kurdish history has been distorted, the likes of which I have never seen. There are some very important ëpagesí still not revealed to our people. I believe the Kurdish Diaspora can play a very important role in translating the history of the Kurds into other languages. It is essential for the historian to know other languages. In the old days, in the era of Saddam, in the universities one never had a chance to learn in or about other languages.
For most of my books, I relied heavily on English sources; I found a lot of important documents and reports in these books. This makes my books more desirable in the eyes of historians and non-Kurdish experts.
English historians have paid good attention to the Kurds and to Kurdistan, and have published many special reports, essays, documents etc. , this material is held in their libraries, and we can refer to this material, use this material, all the time. Also, we can look for the unanswered questions about our history.
Nevertheless, not everybody can be a historian. One of the most important principles, the historian has to be neutral. You have to be neutral when you write about your nationís history. You have to work very hard, you are looking to build Kurdish history on documentary evidence nothing else.
It is not end of the world if our people make mistakes. Every nation historically, has made some mistakes. Therefore, in order to learn the lessons from our mistakes, we have to be very honest in analysing our history. I have to admit, we cannot control all our feelings completely, but we have to discuss in an objective way. We have to uncover, with all the mistakes, without distortion then we can take a lesson from it. One of the famous British historians, Tonybee imposed a lot of principles for the historian to obey, when writing history.
MA: The history of the Kurds is not very clear, and has always been mixed with the history of other nations. What we can do to make it straight and bring clarity to the international community.
KMA: We have a considerable amount of good historical publications. Sharaf Khan Batlisy, a famous Kurdish historian is most important. Historians did their PhD on Sharaf Khanís books. For example, in the 1960ís Vasileva, working in Leningrad wrote thousands of words on the subject, in Russian. There is a real potential for translating these works into foreign languages, especially English.
Other Kurdish historians, Amin Zhaki Beg and Mahmood Bayazidi are the most important historians in nineteenth century. These publications are basically the most powerful sources of Kurdish history. Rafiq Hilmiís memoirs are very significant, published in six parts; the contents deserve to be translated, particularly into English.
Jamil Rosbayani wrote his memoirs in six books, he managed to translate one of them into Arabic. I wish he had been able to translate the rest. Unfortunately, Jamil Rosbayani was murdered by the Baghdad regime and had no chance to do it. The contents are well elaborated; he brings the whole world of the old days of Sheik Mahmood and his politics, and the attitude of the English towards the Kurds and Kurdistan, alive. I have all six books in my library, and other people have too.
The Jhen centre for publication and printing, re-publish all the old books they rescue from decaying. Recently, the Department of Art and Culture in Baghdad published a new edition of Amin Zhaki Begís work with the help and assistance of Mr Mohidien Zhangana. Originally, the book had been written in the Kurdish language, and then translated into Arabic by Mohamed Aki Awni, in Cairo in 1939. Mr Mohidien Zhangan asked me to write the preface for it. I did, and in great detail. Ahmed Khojaís words deserve translation into foreign languages because of their content and historical aspect - the old days of Sheik Mahmood and the English. He was one of the closest to the Sheik and his authority. A lot of people have studied in his special school of thought, and follow his path.
MA: Your latest book on Kirkuk has significant impact on this stage of Kurdish struggle to get through to their ultimate goal of self- determination. We would like to know the history of that book and how far you have gone.
KMA: The fist time this book ëKirkuk and surrounding areaí was published and translated into English. Dr Mahmud Othman [Kurdish MP in Iraqi Assembly] told me in Baghdad that Mr Jalal Talabani [the current Iraqi President] gave each member of the Iraqi council a copy of the book, together with a map - when they came to discuss the case of Kirkuk.
I started writing the book in 1992, in a very secret way. My original ambition about Kirkuk goes back to 1959 when I was a student in Baghdad. In 1959 I found an article by a Turkmen writer in the Ahali newspaper. In that article, the history and origin of Kirkuk had been distorted to that extent that the writer claimed that Kirkuk is not a Kurdish city, but a Turkmen city. When I read it, I was very unhappy, agitated, and I decided to reply to it in six parts. My reply was published in the same newspaper, Ahali. One of my close friends in Kirkuk, Sheik Marf Qaradagi told me that in Kirkuk people took it straightaway and bought it, and they passed copies of it to their friends, due to problems with publishing in of those days. I was very happy when I heard that.
At this time Mr Jamil Roshbayani was in the city of Mandali; he wrote an article in the same newspaper praising my article. He told the readers that he didnít have anything to add because his teacher [KMA] elaborated everything. I was very happy when I heard that Jamil Roshbayani calling me his teacher, even though I was a student, and of course, considered him to be my teacher. For me, at that time, this was equivalent to a Nobel Prize. That is why I will never forget it; it will always stay my memory.
One of my lecturerís at university, Dr Naji Abbas, one of the most serious lecturerís in the university, called me to his office and talked about my good article, and said, ìwell done!î. Then I realised that my article, and my writing, carried weight. From that day, I realised the importance of ëKirkukÖí, and from that day, I decided to stick to it. In my two PhDís, which are mainly about the Kurdish movement, I have written thousands of pages on Kirkuk. Kirkuk is a centre of our Kurdayati, most of the organisations have been built in Kirkuk and it is the most important subject.
In 1992 I decided to write a book about Kirkuk and the surrounding areas, such as Khanaqin, Sanjar and all other areas which the old regime tried to take back from our people. Friends and other people used to ask me which one of my books is classified at the top. I thought at the time ëKurdistan in the Years of the First World Warí. The book has been translated into Arabic by Mohammed Mula Karim and translated into English by Akram Jaff. I remember yourself [Mufid] sent me a copy, and I do realise why you took the preface out of it, because of the danger of the regime in those days.
Now, if anybody asked me what my favourite book is, I would say, without any hesitation, that Kirkuk is my best book, and I will be proud of it for the rest of my life, because I wrote that book in the very difficult days and circumstances, together with very decent resources and references. For the first time I showed to the whole world that Kirkuk is a city of Kurdistan.
MA: Kirkuk is important because of itís economic and political strategies. Can we say that this makes us more hopeful of building our own state sooner rather than later.
KMA: I am very happy, and extremely optimistic about the whole situation. Kirkuk is a part of Kurdistan, and the people in that area make me feel more confident, due to their way of thinking about Kurdayati [Kurdish political movement]. I was teaching for about one year in Khanaqin with other lecturers - Dr Nasren Fakhri and Dr Abdulrahman Haji Marf. During my teaching, I realised the feelings of people in Gharmian are very different from any other part of Kurdistan. I love them and I adore them; ostensibly, the grave repression generates the higher patriotism. Every Kurd would love to see their independent homeland. But there are certain conditions for that movement. It is easy to raise a slogan but difficult to implement it. The most difficult problem, the geographic location of the Kurds, has never helped. Independent Kurdistan is historical in vitality. Kurds have more hope and more friends than ever before. The attitude of the Superpowers has changed, and for the first time our leaders have been invited to the White House and the Oval Office, which has never happened in the past. We played a pivotal role in helping the Allied Forces In the last decade luck has been on our side. The most serious enemy, Saddam, has gone, and the second piece of luck. The Turkish state did not allow the Allied Forces to go through Turkey, which has made Kurds more acceptable to the USA and the UK, even though the UK was an obstacle in creating our Kurdish homeland.
Thank you once again for your time, and I would like to wish you every success for your future work, and continued good health.
Iraq is already in the path of division and parties are rather managing the division right now. in the end, all parties will benefit from such a division. Iraq is an artificially formed country which was glued together by force. Kurds resisted its creation from day one. Now that the force is gone, it will go towards natural solution of three min-state with some form of alliance.
The people in the Middle East should by now [given historical events starting with Noah's Ark, parting of the Red Sea, Alexander the Great, the Crusades, Napoleon's invasion, the Caliphates, the Ottoman Empire, post WW I mandates and the awarding of real estate by the British of parts of Palestine as well as the formation of special frontiers for special interests] accept that the best solution following past practices is to let "foreigners" again determine the size, mixture and composition of the new "realities" in the Middle East.
Its time to reward all those who aspire to be fair and judicious in that part of the world thereby acomplishing a major step for a peaceful and stress free global community.
In this regard Iraq should be split up into three distinct and sovereign states and given to the three nations that examplify democratic ideals and military superiorities. The Northern Part of Iraq should be made into a separate state and attached to Israel. The Southern Part of Iraq should be given back to the UK and the middle part of Iraq should be administered by the USA for a period of 99 years. With the proviso that each new mini-iraq will receive $3 to $4 billion a year in US taxpayer's financial aid and a seat in the UN its a win win situation.
Actions to these ends need to be made asap since defeats of politicians such as Senator Lieberman are indicative of Al Qudda wins and democractic losses in free societies.
Why are we trying to impose something by force? The problem with the future of Iraq has always been foreign intervention. Let Iraqi people decide their own fate for god sake! it is better than daily carnage , mayhem and bloodshed that we can see happen on the street every second. Sooner or later Iraq will be partitioned. Because that is what their inhabitants want.
IT'S TIME FOR YOUR COUNTRY TO SETTLE AND LIVE LIFE ON LIFES TERMS.
It would seem that the new Democratic Style of life in Iraq was voted in by 3 kinds of major groups of people who can live in peace within Iraq under a very bad leader so why can you not lead yourself?.
-
What is wrong with eveyone in Iraq yes all of you living in a 3 type State system with in the one Federal Government?
-
Answer: Nothing at all.
-
It maybe the best for peace in the Nation for the next 5 or 10 years and that is by far more accomplished than killing 100 + each week over no gain? Yes None.
-
Do something for your Country Iraq!! you all say you love it show us you do... You have all of your children, cultures, Religions, History and all life foward to guide you so why not start today, live your life now.
-
If you must remove agression let your people ask by vote what they wish or who they wish removed and other Nations must learn to respect all of that total voice from the young growing country.
-
So please find peace and live it for us to be proud of you and your people forward for years to come from this your last year of war, 2006.
-
May one's Higher Power Guide you to Living in Peace with all mandkind in your Country with the support of all Nations on Earth Forward.
-
With much Respect for all of the Iraq People I, Remain.
-
I do not think so. The debated exercise is evidence of failure of US policy and military misadventure. It reminds me of British Empire's policy of "Divide and Rule" . Before leaving India in 1947, for example, British fanned the Hindu/Muslim religious passion which ultimately led to creation of Pakistan (West Pakistan and East Paklstan separated by over 2000 miles. East Pakistan later became Bangladesh). Same British Empire divided the land of Palestine into 4 parts, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel and remaining Palestine which is the cause of all troubles. US adopted the similar policy - and it created North Korea and South Korea, North and South Vietnam, East Germany and West Germany (which are not united, thanks to Helmut Kohl) in the name of avoiding or defeating communism. In the name of WMD, it launched invasion of Iraq twice, killing over 300,000 iraqi soldiers, civilians etc. When no WMD were found, US tried to conceal the failure by suggesting that they wanted to remove Saddam Hussain's dictatorship. Now that Saddam was removed, there was no need to remain in Iraq, but it continued under another pretext of spreading democracy. When the exercise of democratic election failed, US wanted to conceal the failure by pointing fingers at sectarian violence which it can not stop. US is therefore preparing ground of dividing Iraq based on religion, caste and oil, with rich oil part of Iraq to be given to Shia muslims as reward for its role in assisting US in continuing its occupation. This exerise is almost similar to division of master India into two parts - Pakistan and India as it is known today. US destroyed entire nation of Iraq by bombarding 2000 to 5000 pound bombs at almost every nook and corner of Iraq and reduce it into ashes and rubbles. Iraq was certainly better of under the rule of Saddam Hussain. There were no violence similar to what we witness today. Democracy or no democracy, Saddam Rule was 1000 times better than the current Anglo-American occupation of Iraq. Iraq is classic example of the practice of old policy of "Divide and Rule" and Anglo-American brand of "Rubble Democracy" under which US and UK roam about the world, attack nations under any pretext, reduce whole nation into ashes and rubbles by using 2000 lbs to 5000 lbs bombs, including Bunker Busting Bombs (GBU-28) and then talk about rushing help in the form of UN Aid, deploying International Troops, medicines, and food etc, and finally spread rumours to divide the once beautiful country into several parts based on ethnicity, religion, and other unacceptable reasons. These are all used to conceal their colossal failure in bringing about change. Iraq exercise proves colossal failures and it also proves beyond doubt that Saddam's autocratic rule was hundred times better than Anglo-American brand of "Rubble democracy". America has always fought war in other nation's land, and NEVER on its own land, be it Korea peninsula, Middle East (Iraq, Lebanon through its proxy Israel), Vietnam, Cambodia, Japan and Germany, Yugoslavia (which was ultimately divided into several parts). The world will be better off if both US and UK stop meddling into affairs of every nation and adopt the simple principle of "Live and Let Live". There is therefore no need to divide Iraq - better quit Iraq gracefully and admitting mistake - nothing wronng in it - and restore the rule of Saddam Hussain who proved to be much better leader than the current occupiers like US. At least, the Iraqi were happily living their life with full liberty not available under any other Islamic state, and Iraqi women were enjoying much better freedom than other Arab nations like Iran, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.
I do not think so. The debated exercise is evidence of failure of US policy and military misadventure. It reminds me of British Empire's policy of "Divide and Rule" . Before leaving India in 1947, for example, British fanned the Hindu/Muslim religious passion which ultimately led to creation of Pakistan (West Pakistan and East Paklstan separated by over 2000 miles. East Pakistan later became Bangladesh). Same British Empire divided the land of Palestine into 4 parts, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel and remaining Palestine which is the cause of all troubles. US adopted the similar policy - and it created North Korea and South Korea, North and South Vietnam, East Germany and West Germany (which are not united, thanks to Helmut Kohl) in the name of avoiding or defeating communism. In the name of WMD, it launched invasion of Iraq twice, killing over 300,000 iraqi soldiers, civilians etc. When no WMD were found, US tried to conceal the failure by suggesting that they wanted to remove Saddam Hussain's dictatorship. Now that Saddam was removed, there was no need to remain in Iraq, but it continued under another pretext of spreading democracy. When the exercise of democratic election failed, US wanted to conceal the failure by pointing fingers at sectarian violence which it can not stop. US is therefore preparing ground of dividing Iraq based on religion, caste and oil, with rich oil part of Iraq to be given to Shia muslims as reward for its role in assisting US in continuing its occupation. This exerise is almost similar to division of master India into two parts - Pakistan and India as it is known today. US destroyed entire nation of Iraq by bombarding 2000 to 5000 pound bombs at almost every nook and corner of Iraq and reduce it into ashes and rubbles. Iraq was certainly better of under the rule of Saddam Hussain. There were no violence similar to what we witness today. Democracy or no democracy, Saddam Rule was 1000 times better than the current Anglo-American occupation of Iraq. Iraq is classic example of the practice of old policy of "Divide and Rule" and Anglo-American brand of "Rubble Democracy" under which US and UK roam about the world, attack nations under any pretext, reduce whole nation into ashes and rubbles by using 2000 lbs to 5000 lbs bombs, including Bunker Busting Bombs (GBU-28) and then talk about rushing help in the form of UN Aid, deploying International Troops, medicines, and food etc, and finally spread rumours to divide the once beautiful country into several parts based on ethnicity, religion, and other unacceptable reasons. These are all used to conceal their colossal failure in bringing about change. Iraq exercise proves colossal failures and it also proves beyond doubt that Saddam's autocratic rule was hundred times better than Anglo-American brand of "Rubble democracy". America has always fought war in other nation's land, and NEVER on its own land, be it Korea peninsula, Middle East (Iraq, Lebanon through its proxy Israel), Vietnam, Cambodia, Japan and Germany, Yugoslavia (which was ultimately divided into several parts). The world will be better off if both US and UK stop meddling into affairs of every nation and adopt the simple principle of "Live and Let Live". There is therefore no need to divide Iraq - better quit Iraq gracefully and admitting mistake - nothing wronng in it - and restore the rule of Saddam Hussain who proved to be much better leader than the current occupiers like US. At least, the Iraqi were happily living their life with full liberty not available under any other Islamic state, and Iraqi women were enjoying much better freedom than other Arab nations like Iran, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.
Iraq was created in a wrong way; among others by imposing Kurds into the new Iraqi state was a big mistake in 1920ís. The last 80 years has been disaster for the Kurds. Iraqi history show how big the failure of that annexation was. Now the coalition leaded by USA make the same mistake as the British did in the 20ís.
The American solution may keep Iraq together in the short run, but Iraq can not stand in the long run. It is better to face the reality now and divide Iraq into three independent states.
I believe the divided Iraq to three country be better then forst ethinecs into a country that doesnt means proudness to leave togerther anymore.Becouse KURDISTAN never be part of Arabland,and kurdish people disagree to Arabised.
Since, last centry Arabs tried in many ways to mailt Kurdish by religions into them cultuers,without successful.Kurdish ledership must have strong relations with U.S.A Foriegn policy and make a bridge to Isaiels indeed to defanse themself among the shered enemies.
Do not you guys be so swollen with pride and joyful that the Iraqi president is a Kurd!. As soon as the US get out Iraq, so will be your Kurdish president kicked out. The Kurds are the biggest threat to Islam after Isreal.
Steve Tataii, current Kurdish-American Candidate for U.S. Senate (R), Honolulu, HI, USA. :
I have been saying, and writing; that South Kurdistan should have been Recognized as an Independent state from the beginning in 2003. I went on even writing three recent current event books on this topic: 1- Independent South Kurdistan, 2- IRAQ WARS, 2- Kirkuk Kurdistan. You may read their subtitles, and further details in my Website at: www.tataiiforcongress.com or type "Steve Tataii" in amazon.com or barns & Nobles websites. When Michael Gorbachev of USSR could Liberate more than 12 nations at the stroke of a pen in 1989, even Liberating 2 out of the 3 stateless nations of Armenia and Azerbaijan, but Kurdistan remaining captive due to its complex division among 4 usurper or invading regimes of Turkey, which was itself an artificial state created after WWI, and 3 others of the same in Iraq, Syria, and North West of Iran; then why should it become such a grand scale decision making for us in USA to at least Liberate South Kurdistan to be an Official UN member State? This would have quickly reduced the defunct artificial IRAQ into the SOUTH and CENTER, which are both ethnic ARAB parts. What we could have done then in 2003 can still be done now, because we have failed to understand the meaning and the reality of ETHNIC peoples in that most ancient land, and instead of trying to figure out how to stop Sectarian violence, we must have, and we must still be promoting peace and brotherhood among the two ARABS to make their own ARAB nation, which I call it "Arabistan" in my books, and help them to understand every nation or group within an ethnic people has the right to choose her own sect or even religion. Religion must not be used by others to divide and conquer. The divide and Conquer was the old colonialsm tactic, but we no longer live in that era. Even if dividing Iraq into 3 independent States can bring peace and stability, then be it. We can't have it both ways. If we remain in the present status, and try to solve "SECTARIAN" problems, we will only inflame its fires more, and we'll be forced to divide Iraq into 3, but if we try to create peace, and brotherhood between the two ARAB sects, then we may have a chance for 2 State solution. One South Kurdistan, and the other let's say Arabistan. Either way, South Kurdistan's Independence should not be delayed while we're finding a solution to end ARAB sectarian dilemma. KURDS have had enough of wars, genocides, and human catastrophes by ARABS alraedy, and it is most unfair and BIGOTTED, if we're imposing such a requirement on Kurds of South Kurdistan, whom have had peace and Self-Rule in the past 15 years. Once Kirkuk, and Kurdish Mosul Provinces have returned to Kurdistan, there are no other instabilities to let South Kurdistan become an independent State. For comments please call 808 845 5716 or write to: tataii2003congress@msn.com Please don't forget; that I'm in the middle of campaigning until September 23, and again hopefully till November 7, 2006, and may get back to you with a delay, but I will get back to you at my available time. Thanks, Warm Regards, Steve Tataii. Website at: www.tataiiforcongress.com
The United Nationís Genocide Convention of December 1948 offers a definition of genocide, stated in article II lit. C, that closely mirrors the current situation in South Kurdistan. The situation, in which the people of South Kurdistan live, harms and destroys their physical and psychological integrity. The populationís suffering is because of their national identity, that is, because they are Kurds. Anyone living in the region over the last ten years can confirm that these conditions result from a policy of genocide that was developed and implemented by Saddam. This policy exists today even though Saddam continues to evade punishment.
The scarce sources of water and food available to the people of South Kurdistan are widely contaminated causing death and serious illness. Malnutrition is the rule, not the exception. The appalling state of health care in the region only serves to spread illness, as there is a tremendous lack of medical equipment and medicine. Many in the region must make the long journey to Badgered, the capital of the Al-Anfal genocide campaign, if they wish to receive medical treatment.
Electricity is also another scarce commodity in South Kurdistan. The delivery of other energy resources such as fossil fuels is controlled by the Iraqi regime which uses such powers to carry out crimes of genocide against the people.
Agricultural production has been brought to a virtual standstill as farmers have no access to foreign markets for their products. Further, they are unable to sell to the United Nations which chooses instead to import food from abroad. The UN is destroying agricultural production with our own hard currency from the oil-for-food program. South Kurdistan is under double embargo, first by the United Nations and then by the Iraqi regime.
The depressed economy has produced large numbers of unemployed young people who feel useless and hopeless. Many take the life-threatening journey to try to reach a rich country in the West. Still others are drawn to radical political groups who take advantage of the youthís desperation for their own purposes.
The people of South Kurdistan know who is responsible for their inhuman situation but they are powerless. Kurds, as the victims of the genocide, suffer more than those who commit the crime of genocide against them. The Iraqi regime lives only under one embargo, that of the UN.
Kurds have the additional embargo of no free access to the outside world. The Iraqis can travel to many countries without restrictions. They have unlimited access to Jordanian and Syrian border gates from where they can simply ride a Boeing and travel abroad. Their access to the Gulf gives wide possibilities to exchange goods with the out side world and even to smuggle their oil.
The telecommunication network with the outside world is working and many representatives of foreign states and companies are sitting in Baghdad. None of this is available for Kurds who, as the main victims of the regime, have to beg for fuel and most other items from Badgered. People in Southern Kurdistan are literally cut off from outside world. The border gate with Turkey resembles the eye of a needle. Indeed, it is easier to travel around the world than it is to cross the border gate of Ibrahim Khalil.
The United Nations, which is well informed of our situation, has simply locked our money in foreign accounts and treat us as if we were refugees and beggars in our own land. They bring us contaminated and expired food. They employ foreign nationals for large sums of our money while Kurdish experts are out of work or badly paid.
The United States and its allies know what is going on in Kurdistan but they are not there to liberate people or to bring freedom and democracy. They are there to secure more prosperity and power for their own people. They are interested in our oil but not in our faces. The same forces, who provided Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons and the means to deliver them, are today denying us our right to live in dignity as human beings.
Kurdish leaders in South Kurdistan havenít reacted properly to end the plight of the Kurds. It is like they are sitting in glass houses. They fear that somebody would remind them of their illegal foreign accounts or the hundreds of missing and tortured Kurds. So they prefer to remain silent hoping that the United States will let them rule like other corrupt regimes.
Kurdish leaders will not lose very much if they asked for the lifting of sanctions against the victims of genocide. Is it a crime to be well-fed with our own money? Kurdish leaders should develop courage and raise their voices in the interest of their own people.
Yes of course, they have to do something before they ask for recognition by the international community. They have to create independent institutions, unite the administration and hold democratic elections to be legitimised by the people.
No one will give billions of dollars into their hands, while the revenues of Ibrahim Khalil are the subject of many disagreements between PUK and PKK. The sanctions should be lifted and the work of the Kurdish administration closely controlled by an international body, as is the case in Bosnia and Kosovo.
We are accustomed to reading or hearing statements about the ìindivisibilityî of Iraq from Iraqis of all persuasions, in-and-out of government. The latest such statement comes, not surprisingly, from one of the leaders of the Iraqi Opposition in an article about his vision of a unified, ìdemocratic,î and, certainly, ìindivisible,î post-Saddam Iraq. There is, of course, the obligatory call for building a ìdemocraticî Iraq; however, in this and other Iraqi-grown versions of democracy there will be no room for any discussion of the ethnic or religious diversity of Iraq as if the country were a homogeneous society and not an ethnic patchwork imposed on the people by force. One cannot but ask, ìWhat kind of democracy is it when you call for submerging ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and historical differences in the so-calledînational interestî(Read: ìArab interestî)? As far as Kurds are concerned, Big Brother will always be in charge in Iraq, democracy or not.
Division of Iraq into two independent States, Kurdistan and Iraq, would be the best thing that could ever happen to that country.
We are not surprised at all when we read or hear such views because when it comes to the Kurdish issue, an Iraqi is an Iraqi whether he is in or out of government. There may be a slight difference in approach among Iraqis regarding the Kurdish issue, but it is difficult to find many who would recognize the right of the Kurds to independence unequivocally and without any reservation even though those same Iraqis readily give this right to other oppressed nationalities that have less of a claim to independence than the Kurds do.
Iraqi Arabs have to ask themselves one fundamental question: Is the Kurdish demand of self-determination, including independence, legitimate or not? If their answer is ìYes,î which is extremely unlikely, then there is no problem because that means that the Kurds and the Arabs of Iraq can live side by side as two sovereign neighboring nations with good, neighborly relations with all that the word ìneighborî implies. But if their answer is ìNo,î then, logically, we could justifiably say that all of Iraq should go back under Ottoman / Turkish rule, which used to be the case until the end of World War 1. Both Kurds and Arabs would reject this idea, of course, as they should.
However, we have to ask Iraqi Arabs if there is any difference between the injustice of putting back all of Iraq under Turkish rule and that of keeping the Kurds under Arab rule, as has been the case for the last eighty years. Hasnít the Iraqi Arab rule been much more horrible and inhumane in its treatment of the Kurds than the Ottoman Turkish rule was in its treatment of Arabs, Kurds, Armenians and other nationalities? Who exactly committed genocide in Kurdistan by eliminating a quarter of a million Kurds in the murderous Anfal operations of the late eighties if not the Iraqi regime? Who used weapons of mass destruction freely and in many places culminating in the massacre of 5,000 innocent men, women and children in Halabja if not the regime of Arab Iraq? Who dynamited and razed to the ground practically every village and small town in Kurdistan if not the Iraqi regime? Who is practicing ethnic cleansing and the racist Arabization of the Kurdish areas still under Iraqi government control if not the Arab Iraqi regime? And who has been threatening the liberated part of Kurdistan with invasion, retribution, and re-annexation from the day it was liberated a decade ago if not the Iraqi regime? And how about the countless other unrecorded daily crimes that were perpetrated against the Kurdish people in order to break their spirit and cow them into submission? Surely, these crimes were not committed by people coming from outer space. Havenít we been fooled long enough by the big lie of ìhistorical brotherhoodî and ìcommon historyî between Kurds and Arabs in Iraq?
The Kurds want to get out from under Arab Iraqi rule just as the Arabs wanted to get out from under Ottoman Turkish rule almost a century ago. If the Arab revolution against Turkification and Ottoman Turkish rule and for independence was legitimate then, and it certainly was, why isnít the Kurdish revolution against Arabization and Arab rule and for independence from Iraq legitimate now, almost a century after the Arabs gained their independence?
We wish to ask one simple question of members of the Iraqi Opposition as well as ordinary Iraqis and even supporters of the brutal regime: Would they accept to live under Kurdish rule (not that the Kurds have ever wanted or would ever want to rule Iraq)? There is no doubt that it would be impossible to find a single Iraqi who would be willing to live under Kurdish rule, or any other, for that matter. So, why do these same Iraqis expect the Kurds to live under an Arab rule that is known worldwide for its brutality and inhumanity? In fact, why should the Kurds want to live even within a post-Saddam, supposedly democratic, pie-in-the-sky Iraq when they can, and should, rule themselves in an independent and truly democratic Kurdistan much to the benefit of Kurds and Arabs alike? If some groups in the Iraqi Opposition cannot even bear to hear the name ìKurdistan,î and all believe that to talk about the right of the Kurds to have an independent country they can call their own is a taboo, what hope is there for the Kurds in a so-called future, democratic Iraq?
Given the horrible record of brutality and inhumanity of various Iraqi regimes towards the Kurds since the inception of that country eighty years ago, which culminated in the eighties, and given Kurdish resistance to Iraqi rule from the very beginning, Iraqis should not be surprised if the Kurds want not only to be free from their hateful, present rule but to have nothing to do with any kind of Iraq, democratic or not, under any circumstances.
The division of Iraq would not be detrimental to anyone; in fact, it would be beneficial to both Arabs and Kurds alike because it would end a century of bloodshed between them and put an end to a terrible crime that was committed against the Kurdish people when they were forced by colonial design into an unworkable union against their will. For here is an artificially created country with two distinct, main nationalities, and a few minorities, each with its own language, culture, history, ethnicity, traditions, and aspirations and yet one of these two nationalities is denied the right to be itself and is forced to become the other and serve the other against all the laws of Nature and God. And, as we all know, the result of this forced, unnatural, unequal, dehumanizing, and horrible union has been constant warfare between the two sides. Unless we think anew and undo the terrible mistakes of the past, we will continue to be victimized by the past.
It is high time for all those who have upheld the myth of the unity and territorial integrity of Iraq, including the Western Powers, to have the decency, humanity, courage, and wisdom to stop perpetuating a big injustice done to the Kurdish people when they were robbed of their right to Statehood and realize that the division of Iraq into two independent States, Kurdistan and Iraq, would be the best thing that could ever happen to that country.
There has been a lot of discussion about the US and its intentions towards the Kurds and Iraq and what the Kurdish nation should do for its own survival and interest. The article is an outline to my view on this case.
It is imperative to recognise that in real life all the nations with specifically the US has always put their interest before every thing else including even the cooperation in slaughter, starvation of other people and cooperation with the most criminal regimes. In the mid 60s the US provided the list of over 200,000 Indonesian communist member to the military regime of general Suharto which then carried out a massacre in which half a million people were killed according to the UN reports. This was published last year by the US government and the official documents became public after the 30 rules. In the early 70s they did every thing possible to bring down the democratic government of Salvador Allendy in Chile.
In 1974 after using the Kurdish national movement against the Baíathist regime for their own short-term interest and then despite their promise of protection they abandoned the Kurdish nation to the onslaught of the Sadams genocidal regime and resulted in the mass killing of the Kurds.
In Henry Kisengerís biography; he was asked why is it that you abandoned the Kurds to the Iraqi regime his response was we are not charity business. When in 1988 the criminal Iraqi regime attacked Halabja with chemical weapons (it is very important to realise that the use of chemical weapons was used in many other areas in Iraqi Kurdistan and over many years but unfortunately there were no journalist in these area to film it was thanks to the Iranian journalist how were there at the time to film the gas attack and its aftermath) and annihilated over 5000 human being including many thousands of babies, children, women and men in less than one hour the US did not take this seriously and did not publicly and strongly condemn this act of barbarism. It did not move the US to even to ask for a UN inquiry about this hideous act.
In fact it had a good relation with the fascists in Baghdad until that is when Saddam wanted more and attacked Kuwait which in turn threatened USí interests in the area.
I believe that the US policy for Iraq as I have indicated over a year ago is simply is this: replace Saddam with another military dictator this will solve two crucial problems for the US; 1. Stop the Shiite gaining any real influence in a large part of Iraq due to US concern of increased Iranian influence as well as the Gulf States strong objection. 2. Stop the Kurds gaining independence or any real power over their land. This is solely because of the wishes of it strategic ally Turkey. We should not under estimate the very strong strategic relation between the US and the Turkish state.
Therefore, the Kurdish powers should not be used as s foot soldiers for US policy in Iraq and they should do the decent thing and at least unit and have one political body for foreign relation in order to have more influence in dealing with the outside world.
It is imperative that both Kurdish governments should agree now on at least a minimum platform for their own relationship in order not to have a bloody conflict later on. What will happen if the Iraqi regime collapses (quit likely) and the two Kurdish armies rushes toward Kirkuk and other parts of Kurdistan not under their control. Are they going to fight it of to impose their individual power?
It is time to agree on a political platform and not to be arrogant and ignorant as the loss to Kurdistan could be horrendous.
South-Kurdistan and the conditions of peace in the Middle East
South [Iraq]Kurdistan has a status recognized by the League of Nations and United Nations, Britain and the Republic of Turkey (formerly known as Vilayet of Mousul, Ottoman Empire).
Although it became part of Iraq with a plebiscite in 1936, its former name is still used. In 1958 when Iraq became an independent state, South Kurdistan incorporated to Iraq. Since then the Kurdish national problem exists.
Recent developments with international humanitarian intervention Iraqi Kurdistan (parallel 36) operation Northern Watch etc. brought Kurdistan de-facto State into reality.
Since April 1991 Kurdistan de-facto State is running its own affairs, opening universities, radio and TV stations, municipal elections, parliamentary elections, police and security forces, Central Banks, National Flag, National Anthem, Capital City, Government and Cabinet (Prime Minister and Ministries of Education, Finance and so on) and they have a web site on the internet: www.krg.org.
These are all the required conditions to declare statehood (Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, signed at Montevideo 26 Dec. 1933, Article 1):
1) A permanent population
2) A defined territory
3) A government
4) Capacity to enter relations with other states
However, if Kurdistan de-facto Stateís Government declares independence no country/state/government will recognize it. Why? This needs further analysis, and will be proven now.
Iraqi-Kurds have faced genocide, mass de-population/deportation and racist policies in Iraq. After the infamous Anfal campaigns no Iraqi-Kurd wants to live in Iraq, but because they know no one will recognize their independence, they are seeking a democratised Iraq, Kurdish rights guaranteed by constitution. The same problem exists with Turkey, Iran, and Syria too.
But this case is about Iraqi-Kurds.
Even though Iraqi-Kurds stay in Iraq, after removal of Saddam Hussain from power, with or without US intervention, the new Iraqi government will pursue the old policies of Arabisation of Kurdistan. This is because many reasons, such as the important resources, less powering policies of Kurdish regional administration due to Turkish, Iranian and Syrian pressure and Arab Baas ideology (idea that Kurdistan is an Arab land). There will never be peace in Iraq for these reasons, Iraq as an artificial entity is doomed to fail.
So the only realistic, and long-term solution is to create or accept the Kurdistan State in the Middle East.
This will force Turkey, Iran, Syria to give basic rights to Kurdish nation that they occupied, democratise them and bring back the security and stability into these countries. This will give us better chances to bring peace to the whole Middle East.
In Turkeyís case, it is a country that creates tension in the region. Turkey is the source for regional crisis because of it has problems with Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Georgia, Russia, Armenia, Iran, Iraq and Syria, promoting arm completion in the region.
In brief democratisation of Turkey, finding a solution to Kurdish question in Turkey is very important, and directly related to Iraqi-Kurds situation in Iraq.
Because Turkey is one of the countries unhappy to see Iraqi-Kurds getting statehood, it does everything possible to stop that happening. Sometime last month the Turkish Government said if Iraqi-Kurds declare their statehood, they would declare war on Iraq-Kurds.
A democratic Turkey will be a good neighbour to the Kurdish State. Unfortunately western countries do not want to see Turkey offended, so keep out of minority rights issues in the country.
There is a Kurdish political party - Kurdistan Workers Party PKK in Kurdish - that fought a guerrilla war against Turkey. Since Sept. 1 1998 when it declared its second ceasefire, there is no more armed struggle in Turkey. After the abduction of its leader Abdullah Ocalan, and his trial in Turkey, there is a very good chance to have peace in Turkey, and start a new dialogue between state and its minorities, new constitution, and democratisation process.
PKK peace offers are not getting enough encouragement because of its past, no one wants believe their sincerity or give them a chance to test this, and the chance to find a peaceful solution to Turkeyís problem is going to be missed. Every chance to peace deserves a try.
It is in the benefit of Iraqi-Kurds to support PKK in its struggle for peace and democracy. A democratic Turkish State is as much as important as Democratic Iraq in the ME. When Iraqi-Kurds ask for Democratic Iraq, it is good; but when Kurds in Turkey asks for Democratic Turkey it is a bad thing.
In another perspective the dismemberment of Iraq is very difficult, when you take into consideration of the pressure going to be created by Arab states of the region and other Islamic states, such as Indonesia or Malaysia.
This is another point that can be proven otherwise too. The case of east Timor is a good example.
The so called "War on Terrorism - now Iraq included" still preparing the base for the getting Saddam Hussein off the power, not a viable option due to Iranís role in the region too. According to Dual Containment strategy, the US needs Iraq - call it Saddam - to counterbalance the position of Iran in the Middle East.
However, this does not mean that the Kurds do such analysis in order to do nothing about the situation. The Iraqi-Kurds must have enough courage to change the status quo in the region in their benefit, and involve in intense diplomacy to have the right to Statehood.
These are historical moments in Kurdish politics:
Already existed Kurdish De-Facto State must be prepared to pass the test of recognition by the international community.
Finding the solution to Kurdish question is the first half of the peace process of the Middle East; the other half is Arab/Israel conflict.
After Iraqi-Kurds declare their independence the balance of the power will change in the benefit of peace and democracy loving camp. The peace seeking countries can rely on a reliable, democratic Kurdish state in pursuing further the interest of the peace and democracy in the region.
Turkish nationalism is not only a big threat to the Kurdish nation and itsí very existence, it is a danger to the whole region. It threatens the Kurds, the Persians, the Greeks, the Russians as well as the Chinese. This dangerous tidal wave of nationalism, based solely on race, must be stopped before it gains more ground. The west may believe that Turkish Nationalism is a tool for Western expansion, from Eastern Europe to the Chinese border, but later they will regret their encouragement and protection of this monster as it grows and destabilizes the world.
In the Balkans, Turkish nationalism is a threat using the name of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is a threat in Greece and Bulgaria, using the Turkish minorities. In South Kurdistan they hide behind the name of the Turkomen Front and in Iran, behind the name of Azeris. In Chechnya, it is the Chechen freedom fighters and in Russia it disguises itself behind many ethic groups, namely, the Kirimian Turks, Karay, Kirimcak , Dagistan, Kabartay, Balkier, Karachay, Tqbassaran, Kabartay, Avar, Kumuk, Nogay, Tartar, Balkar, and, in China the Uigur Turks. Not to mention their activity in Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgizistan, and Kazakistan.
It is no secret, that when Devlet Bahceli, Turkeyís Nationalist Action Party leader and Deputy Prime Minister, recently visited Azerbaijan, he stated he was happy to visit "the real homeland," and said "Turkey and Azerbaijan are members of the same nation."
THE ORIGIN OF TURKISH NATIONALISM
The Turks are a Turanian race from Central Asia. A legend tells the story that they lived in the Altai Mountains of Central Asia and when a disaster hit that area, the Turks were lost in the mountains and could not find their way out. One day a grey wolf showed up and led them through a pass and they dispersed through all of Asia, The gray wolf has been their symbol ever since.
In truth, however, the Turks were a tribal people and lived in Central Asia as nomads. During the expansion of Islam in the 8th century, the Turks were captured, taken to Baghdad as slaves and introduced to Islam by the Abbasid dynasty. These soldier slaves continued their contact with family in Central Asia spreading the Middle East culture by word of mouth. Two centuries later, when the Mongols advanced on the Central Asian Steppes, the Turks, knowledgeable about the middle east, moved westward, eventually settling in Anatolia. After they defeated the Bysantines in 1071 the Turks became known as the Seljuk Dynasty and made Konya their capital. The Ottomans rose from the ashes of the Seljuks and moved their capital to Bursa and later, to Constantinople. The Ottoman Empire was a multi-cultural, multi-lingual and multi-ethnic empire. The ethnic minorities were able to preserve their culture and identity. Kurdistan, as a region, had autonomy and independence until the 18th century.
As Noam Chomsky in his Diyarbakir speech stated "There was a lot wrong with the Ottoman empire, but some things about it were basically correct: mainly, the fact that it left a high degree of regional autonomy and independence within a framework, which unfortunately was autocratic and corrupt and brutal, but we can eliminate that part, and the positive aspect of the Ottoman empire probably ought to be reconstructed in some fashion."
In Sir Telford Waughís book "Turkey: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow" he writes that: "....in his book, íThe Foundation of the Ottoman Empire,í Dr. H. A. Gibbons argues that calling the Osmanlis "Turks" is a historical error. He quotes díOhsson: íThe Osmanlis employ the term "Turk" in referring to a coarse and brutal man. As they attach to this word the idea of the most marked insult, no foreigner in the Empire ever allows himself to use it in speaking to them.í This was true up to the time of the Nationalist revival in Ankara. One is reminded of the remark of an English ladyís maid on hearing a tale of Turkish massacre: íThey donít call them Turks for nothing, Madam.í
"All through their history it seems as though the Osmanli Turks tried to forget their Turanian origin. They took their religion, Islam, and their Sheria law from the Arabs. Their language, originally the simple Chagatai speech of Central Asia, borrowed more and more from Arabic and Persian phraseology, until out of every ten words in a Turkish newspaper probably five would be Arabic and two Persian. Their proper names were nearly all Arabic - Osman, Mohammed, Hasan, Husein, etc. Toward the end of the last century there was a curious change of outlook. A movement known as Pan-Turanian began, with the idea of linking up with the Turkish races outside Turkey, in the Caucasus and Trans-Caucasia. Count Ostrorog, in his book, íThe Angora Reform,í noticed in Chapter V, attributes this movement partly to the influence of a French writer, Leon Cahun, who published a series of books for boys - Banniere blue, La Tueuse, Hassan le Janissaire - translated into Turkish and much read in Turkey; they held it to admiration the old Tartar conquerors under Jenghiz Khan, Hulagu, and Timurlen. The Mongols are exalted as the aristocracy of the East, superior to Chinese, Arabs, and Persians, and reference is made to the Grey Wolf legend of the common stock of Turks and Mongols. Be that as it may, the Turks began to call their boys by Turkish names - Alp Arslan, Buyuk Alp, Ertugrul, Kilic Arslan, in place of Arabic names generally used. .....The emancipation from Islam and the Sheria law, the Angora movement for the purification of the Turkish language, the Gray Wolf on the new postage stamp are all signs of the revived interest of the Turkish in his Turanian origin."
The first Turks who learned nationalism were the Jon Turks. Most of them were either students or military officers of the Ottoman Empire, studying in Europe. They were witness to the European Industrial Revolution as the national characteristics of modern European countries were forming. Germanyís progress, especially, was most admired.
THE INFLUENCE OF GERMAN NATIONALISM ON TURKISH NATIONALISM
Turkish nationalism was greatly influenced by German nationalism. Germany and Eastern European countries completed their industrial revolution after the western European countries. That is why their focus was more cultural and religious in nature rather than political like the other western Europeans.
Later, shortly after Germanyís economic progress around 1871, the Germans introduced racism into their political agenda. In the 1890ís Cardo Gobineaus, Darw Houston, Stewart Chamberlain and Paul de Lazarde, in their publications, insisted that the Aryan race was superior. They gave Germany as an example for the economic and cultural progress it made. For example, in the 1860ís England held %25 of world industrial production (approximately itís equivalent of todayís U.S. economic share of production). In 1913 it went down to %10 . The bottom line is Germanyís industrial productivity one year before the first world war was one and half of Englandís productivity. German nationalists used this fact
for their racial success. In the 19th century, in the industrial field, the progress Germany made to modernize the country helped it to build confidence to the extreme. It was that confidence that led the country to the extreme.
Germany appeared to be the strongest nation at the time, and a general characteristic of the Turks has always been their worship of the strongest, either individuals and or nations. After 1870, when the Union and Progress Party and nationalistic Turkish politicians started to gain momentum in the Ottoman Empire, they were so impressed by Germanyís economic success and that it served only for the benefit of the German Empire, the Union and Progress leadership dragged the Ottoman empire into WWI on the side Germany and brought disaster to the empire. The same characteristic is valid for todayís Turkish leadership.
Among Turkeyís Grand Assembly members of the 1920sí who had military background, more than half of them spoke German. It is obvious these parliamentarians had a German education and were influenced by the Germans. Until that time, Ottoman military officers were educated in the history of the Ottoman Empire. They gradually distanced themselves from Ottoman history, turning to pre-Ottoman Turkish history and their Central Asian origins. H.E. Allen, in the early 1930sí wrote, that during World War I, and after, it was very clear that German influence was effective in the Turkish state system - especially on ex-military personnel. A lot of these people looked at the west from a German point of view. Over all, from 1885 through WWI, the Germans taught the Turks their racist ideology in order to serve Germans interests. The founders of the Turkish Republic, both military and civilian, were indoctrinated with German racist ideology. These Turkish intellectuals, belonging to a still undeveloped nation, were not perfected in their intellectualism and what they learned from the Germans was implemented in an exaggerated way and was worse than what the Germans had.
TURKISH ULTRA NATIONALISTS ARE ORGANIZING TURKISH ETHNICS BASED ON RACE
Today, we see Turkey practicing this ideology within and even beyond Turkish boundaries. Within the boundaries "one nation, one race, one language, one thought" is in full force. This racist ideology has been heavily imposed on the Kurds in Turkey since the foundation of the Turkish Republic. The Kurdish people have been displaced by the millions; they continue to be killed, tortured, and jailed by the thousands. The disappearance of 17,000 people since 1990 is still a mystery. Turkish nationalism continues beyond itsí borders. The Turkish Republic hopes to organize every Turkish individual under a single banner. They are active in South Kurdistan and are organizing the Turkomans under the Turkmen Front to destabilize a de facto Kurdish state preparing these Turkmen groups for future plans. The Kurdish factions in South Kurdistan must be extremely careful and vigilant against the activities of the Turkmen Front. Kurdish parties must not act against each other. They will only be able to fight against Turkish racism by uniting. It is clear the Turkmen Front in South Kurdistan is an extension of the Turkish Gray Wolf organization which is seeking opportunities to inflict more harm in South Kurdistan. Turkmen citizens of Kurdistan, such as the Turkmen Front, should be treated like the rest of Kurdistanís citizens but should not be allowed to act as if they are above the law.
Past performances of Turkish Ultra Nationalists (Gray Wolves) have proven that they are an extension of the Turkish Secret Service and Turkish military personnel. They have been active in Chechnya, Bosnia and Herzagovina, Azerbeijan, and even in Turkistan and Uigur in China . Some of their members, who fought against the Russians in Chechnya, were involved in terrorist activities in Turkey and were never convicted of terrorism. A few years ago they highjacked a ferry, stormed into a Hotel in Istanbul and kept foreign tourists, including Russians, hostages. The terrorists were treated as commen criminals. More recently, May 4, a gunman stormed into an Istanbul hotel and took 13 people hostage to protest Russiaís military campaigns in Chechnya. The Turkish authorities, as well as the Turkish media, immediately identified him as mentally ill. Turkey claimed the hostage taker had no connection to Chechnya. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov accused Turkey of being soft on terrorism after the hostage-taking episode in Istanbul.
The Turkish Daily News, dated May 7, writes, "...Turkey has debated over whether or not to allow into the country a spokesman for the Chechnyan separatist cause, who is reportedly wanted by police worldwide." Ivanov was quoted by the Tass News Agency as saying, íSuch examples show double standards. The Turkish authorities show, to put it mildly, indulgence towards those extremists who fought in Chechnya or support those who are now fighting.... And do not take the necessary measures.í"
The same day, the Turkish Daily News reported that "A very interesting figure arrived in Ankara recently as part of his tour to seek support for Iranian Azerbaijanis in leading Western capitals, against the policies of Tehran, over 30 million Azerbaijanis of living in Iran."
"Dr. Mahmudali Cohreganli, the leader of the South Azerbaijan National Wakening Movement, spoke to the Turkish Daily News, describing the aim of his initiative.
"Cohreganli will meet with the secretary-general of the United Nations (UN) Kofi Annan in New York, after his meetings in Turkey.
"And in Ankara, where he arrived upon the invitation of the Turkish Gray Wolves and Azervbaijani Culture Center, he was scheduled to be received by the representatives of all political parties.:
"... The Southern Azerbaijan issue has a strategic importance because of the future of the Turkish worldí says Cohreganli, in reference to former Azerbvaijani leader Ebulfehz Elcibey, who believes that the road to the Turkish world passes through Tabriz."
On April 15, the Turkish Daily News writes, "Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji arrived in Ankara on Monday April 15 to discuss trade and terrorism. One of the Chinese Premierís main topics was to discuss with the Turkish authorities about ethnic Uighur Turkish separatists battling for an independent state of East Turkistan in Chinaís northwest region of Xinjian. Mr. Rongji told Turkish authorities that the Uighurs plotted their attacks against China from within Turkey."
The KDP Dailyís Birayeti reported On May 17 during a Turkish security forces incursion into South Kurdistan in what they called an operation against Kurdish Guerillas from North Kurdistan, the security forces killed two Kurdish citizens and detained 47 others. The Turkish security forces took these Kurds from the South to a military base in Turkey. They tortured them and had the detaineesí hair cut and later handed them over to the Kurdish Democratic Party Authorities at the border gate.
This latest international act of terrorism by the Turkish state should not go unpunished. It should be condemned at the highest level by the Kurdish administration in the south. The case should be taken to the UN Security Council. The Kurdish administration should assist these victims of Turkish state terrorism to take their case to the European Human Rights court for justice and compensation.
These activities clearly define Turkeyís role in state-sponsored terrorism. It is not only practiced on Kurds in Turkey, but also on Kurds in South Kurdistan and many other parts of the world. The Kurds can only fight against Turkish nationalism by unifying and cooperating by and with all Kurdish organizations.
Informed Sources state that Hussein Qifriq Aughlu, a high ranking officer in Turkish army, has told Paul Wolfowitz, the Assistant Secretary of USA Defence Minister, that Turkey would interfere directly if a Kurdish State, which included Kirkuk, was established.
During the meeting at Turkish Army Head Quarter, he pointed to Kurdistan City of Kirkuk on an Iraqi Kurdistan map and said: If a condition, not acceptable to us, developed in North Iraq, especially in Kirkuk as the consequences of your coming military operations, that would be very sensitive to us and I would like to inform you that we shall interfere directly in the region in case a Kurdish State with Kirkuk established.î He stressed that Turkmans, living in Kirkuk, concern Turkey a lot. He added that he, himself, was a Turkman descendant.
The Assistant Secretary of USA Defence Minster was on a visit to Turkey to persuade Turks to give up their support for sources of terror and terrorism in Iraq and give up their objection to eradicate these sources of terror and terrorism through a military campaign to liberate Iraq from these sources of terror and terrorism and eradicating them.
Kirkuk city - South Kurdistan
The Turks have made many demands from the USA as a price for their cooperation with the USA against sources of terror and terrorism in Iraq. It seems that the Assistant Secretary of USA Defence Minister has not agreed on all their demands like allowing Turkey to take over Kirkuk. That is why Turkish Officials now playing a different game, knocking on the door of Kurds and calling: O.K. If we get Kirkuk you can have your Kurdish State. Otherwise they directly interfere if this new Kurdish State includes Kirkuk.
These Turkish Officials are really shortsighted. If Iraqi Kurds seeking separation and accepted the existing crumbs without Kirkuk, most probably Saddam Hussein would have been the first one in history who recognised an independent Kurdish State. It is Ironic that these Turkish Officials, the product of a 600-year-old empire intellect and culture, are so incapable to recognise requirements of the modern world and how incapable to comprehend that in 21st century you cannot do any thing you want because you have an extremely strong armed forces.
These armed forces, Turkish armed forces, built on the back of their population and caused Turkey to become a source of cheap labour for European Labour Market and depend on the IMF and USA hand outs for its survival. This is really a good final product of a 600-year-old Ottoman Empire. A product, Turkish Republic, which take children to court for demanding to study in their mothersí tongue or imprisoning an elected Kurdish legislator for wearing Kurdish costumes and depriving 20 million Kurds, under its control, from their basic rights.
Their character and frames of mind, which are very far from 21st Century, still reflect their original Ottoman root when they contacted Europe during European renaissance for the first time. During that time, Ottoman Europeanised ruling class was mainly influenced by Germans who were very proud for being Germans because of their potential to make Germany a strong Industrialised European Country.
However, this newly bred Turkish Social Class misunderstood why the Germans were proud of their being as Germans. They imitated Germans but as being proud of their being as Turks. Accordingly they corrupted the concept. The Germans were proud as Germans for an achievement, making Germany a strong industrialised country. But this newly bred Turkish Social Class became as proud Turks for no reason. But it gave them a sense of purpose in a sense that they felt superior over none Turks. In another word, they invented the concept of racial superiority. Off course, in their case, Turks were the superior race.
Oil fields of Babegurgur in Kirkuk
After their invention, they discovered their nightmare, Ottoman Empire was made up mainly from none Turks and Turks represented only a small fraction of the population of the Empire. This created a sense of insecurity and paranoia as they lost in an unknown territory just like their forefathers when they lost but saved by a grey wolf. So they started to look for another grey wolf to save them and they found one, which was the forced Turkification of none Turkish subjects of the Empire to Turkish.
But this time, their new Grey Wolf was not so faithful. It brought down their empire over their head. All none-Turkish Subjects of the Empire started fighting back the policy of forced Turkification and kicked out the Turkish Rulers from their lands to become independent. So their new Grey Wolf cost them their empire.
The irony is that they have not yet learnt a lesson. Because of their sense of insecurity and paranoia, they are still following their new Grey Wolf. That is way they have deprived 20 million Kurds under their control from their basic human rights in the hope that they, the Kurds, will convert to Turks. But their new Grey Wolf has let them down. The Kurds didnít convert to Turks, but converted to 20 million mountains hanging by a string over their heads.
This has created their worst nightmares. Because of their insecurity from being crushed by these 20 million mountains, they have invested all their resources into their armed forces as well as joined Nato. So this product of a 600 year old Empire supposed to have prospered as good as Germans or Japanese but instead it has ended up as a provider of cheap labour to Europe and if it is not because of the hand outs of IMF and USA it will crumble to the finish because of their paranoia and insecurity.
It is the duty of the free world to keep them at bay to prevent them to interfere in the affairs of Kurdistan and Iraq after the liberation of Iraq. They already represent a time bomb to breed terror and terrorism. If they put their nose into the affairs of Iraq and Iraqi Kurdistan after liberation, the whole region inflames creating breeding ground for terror and terrorism to threaten the peace and tranquillity of the free world.
The Free World has to recognise that the complete eradication of the conditions, which breed terror and terrorism, can come about only through a free and democratic social environment and the foundation of this free and democratic social environment has already been established in Iraqi Kurdistan. Not only that, the character of Kurdish Leadership is a right character fits with the requirements of a free and democratic social environment. They are secure and have trust in themselves.
This has proved through the Iraqi Kurdistan democratic experiment. Kurdish Leaders travel all over the world as the world belongs to them. Despite all obstacles and difficulties, they have recognised the cultural and political rights of all diversities in Kurdistan as an obligation not as a favour. All diversities in Iraqi liberated Kurdistan have their own publications, radios, TVs and schools in their mother tongues as well as enjoying their full democratic rights. This is a lot. When compared with a country like Turkey we see what Kurds have achieved in the field of civil society in ten years is a lot more than what the Turks have achieved in 600 years.
Iraqi Kurdistan Democratic Experiment is a starting point to create a civil society in the whole region as a sure guarantee against any condition which breed terror and terrorism. Accordingly it is the duty of the free world after the liberation of Iraq to ensure Iraqi Kurdistan region, as an Iraqi Federated State, includes all areas, especially Kirkuk, which were historically and are geographically parts of Kurdistan.
This is especially applies on Kirkuk. Kurds have proved that they can spearhead the establishment of a civil society in the region as a sure guarantee against terror and terrorism against the free world. This quest needs resources and these resources exist in Kirkuk oilfields. In addition to this, it is necessary for Kirkuk to be included within Iraqi Kurdistan Federated State as a fair share of natural resources between new Iraqi Federated States.
It is vitally important for the free world to keep Turkey at bay, not to take over Kirkuk. Turkish Ruling class are insecure and paranoiac exactly like Saddam Hussein. If they take over Kirkuk, they will inflame the region from Mediterranean to China border in a long-term turmoil threatening the security of free world. They use Turkman cause as an excuse, which is not valid because Turkmans have never had it so good within Iraqi Liberated Kurdistan since the establishment of the state of Iraq.
They claim they want to protect Turkmans from the Kurds but they never came by words or deeds to protect Turkmans from tyranny and atrocity of Saddam Hussein against Turkmans. Today, Turkmans enjoy their full democratic rights in Iraqi liberated Kurdistan. But where they, Turkmans, live under Iraqi Government, their properties confiscated, their rights violated and forcefully deported to south Iraq or Liberated Kurdistan. So whom Turkey bluffs? Certainly only itself.
Though the Arabs and Persians have been no less oppressive and opposed to Kurdish national aspirations, they have maintained a much lower profile than the Turks on the Kurdish issue. Why does Turkey harbors such a strong hate and opposition to the Kurdish nation, which helped their ancestors build the Ottoman empire? Kemal Ataturk was able to skillfully manipulate the Kurdish population of Northern Kurdistan by promising them partnership in the new state of Turkey. Instead of treating the Kurds as equal partners, the Kemalists later denied their very existence. They embarked on the assimilation of the Kurds with a view to wiping out the Kurdish nation.
The Turks thought that by denying the Kurds the right to speak their mother tongue and exercise their cultural heritage, they will eventually become Turks within a few decades. After almost eight decades of Turkeyís oppressive policy, the Kurdish nation is very well and kicking. They called the Kurds Mountain Turks who had forgotten their mother tongue and cultural heritage. The Kurds were deprived not only of their civil rights, but also of equal economic opportunities with the rest of population. As a result, the Kurdish region, which is endowed with many natural resources, including oil and water, has remained underdeveloped with high rates of unemployment, low per capita income, high child mortality, and a very low literacy rate.
Turkeyís unwise policy has certainly negatively impacted not only the Kurdish economy, but also the overall economy of Turkey. Just imagine how much contribution some 15 million educated and skilled Kurds could have made to the Turkish economy during the past decades. Its Kurdish policy has left the Turkish economy in shambles, prone to collapse without continued American/ IMF help. Despite the billions of dollars of IMF (International Monetary Fund) money pumped into Turkeyís economy, inflation is sky-rocketing and unemployment is rampant in the country. Instead of investing in economic development and social justice, Turkey spent some eight billion dollars a year fighting the Kurdish rebels during 1984-1999.
Due to the rigid and irrational government policy and its discriminatory practices against the Kurds, the Kurdish region has suffered much more than the rest of the country. In the absence of a better outlet for expressing their political and social grievances, the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) emerged in 1984 and rose up against the central government, which is controlled by ideologically oriented armed forces who claim to be the guardians of Kemal Ataturk`s legacy. If their claim that that they are protecting a pluralistic democratic system is correct, why then has the European Union made the revamping of the Turkish constitution a prerequisite for joining their club?.
Assisted by the western states, Turkey was able to capture, try, and imprison Abdullah Ocelan, the leader of the Kurdish uprising in Northern Kurdistan-Turkey. Under pressure from the European community, the PKK changed its strategy from armed struggle to political activism. It renounced acts of violence, called for an unconditional cease-fire, and demobilized its activities inside Turkey. In order to pacify the Kurdish movement in Turkey, the European Community called on Turkey to discontinue the death penalty, allow broadcasting in Kurdish, and legalize education in Kurdish. The European Union has made these changes, among others, as a prerequisite for opening a membership dialogue. Turkey has recently made some cosmetic changes in its constitution to reflect these requests. However, reading between the lines reveals that bureaucratic obstacles for obtaining government permits are expected to render exercising these so-called new rig
Readers’ Responses to Our Question (166)
Kurdistan: A viable state - II
KurdishMedia.com - By Mufid Abdulla
Part II
International law developed to deal with newly-arising states
The French monk Emeric Cruce (1590-1648) elaborated the idea of having representatives of all countries meet in one place to discuss their conflicts, so as to avoid war and to create more peace. He suggested this in his ëThe New Cyneasí (1623) and chose Venice as the selected city for all representatives to meet. He suggested that the Pope should preside over the meeting. Of course, during the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) this was not acceptable to the Protestant nations. He also said that armies should be abolished and called for a world court. Though his call to abolish armies was not taken seriously, Emeric Cruce does deserve his place in history - through his foresight that international organizations are crucial to solve international disputes. The statesmen of the time believed no nation could escape war, so they prepared for it. King Henry IVís chief Minister, the Duke of Sully, proposed the founding of an alliance of the European nations that was to meet to arbitrate issues and wage war, not between themselves but collectively against the Ottoman Turks, he called it the Grand Design, but it was never established.
Modern international law is often affirmed as the product of modern European civilization. The seafaring principalities of India established legal rules for ocean navigation and regional commerce. The Greek system of independent city-states bore a close resemblance to the contemporary nation state system. The Aetolian and Achaean leagues of the 3rd century BC represented early organisational efforts at international cooperation, and facilitated the development of arbitration as a dispute-settlement technique.
International law
International law is different from private international law. In its most general sense it consists of rules and principles of general application, dealing with the conduct of states and of international organizations, and with their relations. International law concerns the structure and conduct of states, international organizations, and, to a certain degree, multinational corporations and individuals. Public international law; regulates the relationship between states and international entities; regulates competing demand; and establishes the framework for predictable and agreed behaviour among parties. Private international law selects between conflicting municipal systems of law to regulate the relationship between persons, as defined both legally and naturally. The necessity for international law arose in the context of increased international communication, trade, and conflict.
The scope of international law
International law establishes the framework and the criteria for identifying states as the principal actors in the international legal system. The existence of a state presupposes control and jurisdiction over territory. International law deals with the acquisition of territory; state immunity; and the legal responsibility of states in their conduct with each other. The law is similarly concerned with the treatment of individuals within state boundaries. There is thus a comprehensive regime dealing with; group rights; the treatment of aliens; the rights of refugees; international crimes; nationality problems and human rights.
Furthermore, it generally includes; the important functions of the maintenance of international peace and security; arms control; the pacific settlement of disputes; and the regulation of the use of force in international relations. Even when the law is not able to stop the outbreak of war it has developed principles to govern the conduct of hostilities and treatment of prisoners. International law is also used to; govern issues relating to the global environment; global ëcommonsí such as; international waters; outer space; global communications, and world trade. Whilst municipal law is hierarchical or vertical, with the legislature enacting binding legislation. International law is horizontal, with all states being sovereign and theoretically equal. Because of this, the value and authority of international law is dependent upon the voluntary participation of states in its formulation, observance, and enforcement. Although there may be exceptions, most states enter into legal commitments with other states out of enlightened self-interest rather than adherence to a body of law that is higher than their own. As D. W. Greig notes, ëinternational law cannot exist in isolation from the political factors operating in the sphere of international relations. Traditionally, states were the sole subjects of international lawí.
The State and conflicts over international law
The 17th,18th and 19th centuries saw the growth of the concept of a ìnation -stateî, which comprised of nations controlled by a centralized system of government. The concepts of nationalism became increasingly important as people began to see themselves as citizens of a particular nation, with a distinct national identity. Until the beginning of the 20th century, relations between nation-states were dictated by Treaty - unenforceable agreements to behave in a certain way towards another state. Many people now view the nation-state as the primary unit of international affairs. States may choose to voluntarily enter into commitment under international law, but they will often follow their own counsel when it comes to an interpretation of their commitments. As the 20th century progressed, a number of violent, armed conflicts, including WW1 and WWII, exposed the weaknesses of a voluntary system of international treaties.
Many people feel that these modern developments endanger nation states by taking power away from state governments and ceding it to international bodies such as the U.N and the World Bank. Some scholars and political leaders have recently argued that international law has evolved to a point where it exists separately from the mere consent of states. There is a growing trend toward judging a stateís domestic actions in the light of international law and standards. A number of states, notably within the United Nations vehemently oppose this interpretation, maintaining that sovereignty is the only true international law and that states have free reign over their own affairs. Similarly, a number of scholars now discern a legislative and judicial process to international law that parallels such processes within domestic law. Opponents of this point of view maintain that states only commit to international law with express consent; have the right to make their own interpretations of its meaning; and that international courts only function with the consent of states because international law is a relatively new area of law; its development is uncertain and its relevance and propriety hotly disputed.
There are three primary sources of international law:
- International treaties law
- Custom law
- General principles of law
International treaty law is comprised of obligations that states expressly and voluntarily accept between themselves in treaties. Customary international law is derived from the consistent practice of states accompanied by opinio juris ie., the conviction of states that consistent practice is required by a legal obligation. Judgments of international tribunals as well as scholarly works have traditionally been looked to as persuasive sources for custom in addition to direct evidence of state behavior. Attempts to codify customary international law picked up momentum after the second world war with the formation of the International Law Commission (ILC) .Codified customary law is made the binding interpretation of the underlying custom by agreement through treaty. General principles of law are those commonly recognized by the major legal systems of the world. Certain norms of international law achieve the binding force of peremptory norms as to include all states with no permissible derogations. Legal principles common to major legal systems may also be invoked to supplement international law when necessary.
Interpretation of international law
Where there are disputes about the exact meaning and application of national laws, it is the responsibility of the courts to decide what the law means .In international law as a whole, there are no courts which have the authority to do this. It is generally the responsibility of states to interpret the law for themselves. Unsurprisingly this means that there is rarely agreement in cases of dispute.
Enforcement by States
The force of international law has always come from the pressure that states put upon one another to behave consistently and to honour their obligations. As with any system of law many violations of international law obligations are overlooked. If addressed, it is almost always purely through diplomacy, and the consequences upon an offending states reputation. Though violation may be common, in fact, states try to avoid the appearance of having disregarded international obligations. States may also unilaterally adopt sanctions against one another, such as the severance of economic or diplomatic ties, or through reciprocal action. In same cases, domestic courts may render judgement against a foreign state for an injury, though this is a complicated area of law where international law intersects with domestic law. States have the right to employ force in self-defence against an offending state that has used force to attack its territory or political independence. .
Enforcement by International bodies
States can also upon mutual consent, submit disputes for arbitration by the international court of justice, located in the Hague, Netherlands .The judgements given by the court in these cases are binding although it possesses no means to enforce its rulings. The court may give an advisory opinion on any legal question at the request of whatever body may be authorized by or in accordance with the charter of the United Nations to make
such a request.
History
Through the ages a code developed for relations and conduct between nations. Even when nations were at war, envoys were often considered immune to violence. The first formal attempts in this direction, which over time have developed into current international law, stem from the era of the Renaissance in Europe. In the Middle Ages, it had been considered the obligation of the church to mediate in international disputes. During the Council of Constance(1414) Pawel Wlodkowic - Rector of Jagiellonian University (Krakow, Poland), theologian, lawyer and diplomat - presented the theory that all, including Pagan nations have right to self-govern, to live in peace and possess their land. At the beginning of the 17th Century, several generalizations could be made about the political situation:
1. Self-governing, autonomous states existed.
2. Almost all of them were governed by monarchs.
3. Land, wealth, and trading rights were often the topics of wars between states.
September 25, 2006 8:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Kurdistan: A viable state - I
KurdishMedia.com - By Mufid Abdulla
Part 1
Introduction
For the last two decades Kurdish nationalism has remained more alive than at any other time in the history of the Kurdish struggle. Strategies to establish our own country never been far away. The slogan of an independent Kurdish state has never been relinquished. Sheik Ubadulla Shamziniís uprising spread throughout Kurdistan - comprising, Iranian Kurdistan and Ottoman Kurdistan, encompassing the region in 1880. Most of the Kurdish historians analysed this as one of the most powerful uprisings. Sheik Ubadulla Shamzini demanded the formation of a Kurdish state. The slogan of independence for the Arabís came later - (around) 1916, by Sharif of Mecca - with the help of the British. Even though, the Arab nation had the very first conferment in Paris they only managed to acquire the slogan of decentralisation rather than independence. The first Kurdish newspaper, ëKurdistaní - published in Cairo in 1898 - had as their main slogan an independent Kurdistan, and nothing less. The content of all their articles always adopted this principle.
Hadji Kadir Coie , the famous Kurdish poet, always advocated Kurdish rule, and independence for Kurdistan - he died in Istanbul 1897 - most of the time his poetry talked about a Kurdish state. In 1922 Sheik Mehmood created a Southern State of Kurdistan, for the first time we had our own stamps and a Kurdish cabinet. When Sheik Mehmood declared an independent Kurdistan he was sitting next to Captain Noel, British representative. In 1919, at the peace conference , Sharif Pasha gave a detailed report about Kurdish independence to the Alliance Powers .The Pact of Sever had chapters and sections (62.63,64) devoted to Kurdish independence, which has never been implemented. Qazi Mohamed formally proclaimed his Kurdish peopleís government on January 22, 1946 in Chwar Chira square, where the townís only two paved streets crossed. In attendance, as he raised the Kurdish flag, were Iranian tribal chiefs, KDP officials, three Soviet officers in a jeep with machine guns, and Barzani, soon to be seen decked out in a Soviet generalís uniform, with high boots and stiff shoulder straps. Therefore, we need to understand the concept of state, law, the regulations behind the state and national powers, and to analyse international law, underpinning the nation state. Finally, to enrich our essay by bringing very vivid examples of newly-built nation states throughout history.
The State
A state is a set of institutions that possess the authority to make the rules that govern the people - having internal and external sovereignty over a definite territory. Following Max Weberís influential definition, ëa state has a monopoly on legitimate violenceë. Hence the state includes such institutions as the armed forces, civil service or state bureaucracy, courts, and police. The actions of private justice or of private corporate armies, both characteristic of feudalism, are the symptoms in the modern world of a ìfailed stateî. For theorists of international relations, recognition of the stateís claim to independence by other states, enabling it to enter into international engagements, is key to the establishment of its sovereignty.
Although the term often refers broadly to all institutions of government or rule - ancient and modern - the modern state system bears a number of characteristics that were first consolidated in western Europe, beginning in earnest in the 15th century. In the late 20th century, the globalisation of the world economy, the mobility of people and capital, and the rise of many international institutions all combined to circumscribe the freedom of action of states. However, the state remains the basic political unit of the world, as it has been since the 16th Century. The state is therefore considered the most central concept in the study of politics, and its definition is the subject of intense scholarly debate. Political sociologists in the tradition of both Karl Marx and Max Weber usually favour a broad definition that draws attention to the role of the coercive apparatus.
Since the late 19th century, the entirety of the worldís inhabitable land has been parcelled up into states; earlier, quite large land areas had been either unclaimed or uninhabited ,or inhabited by nomadic peoples who were not organized as a state. Currently more than 200 states comprise the international community, with the vast majority of them represented in the United Nations. In casual usage, the terms îcountryî ìnationî and ìstateî are often used as if they were synonymous: but in a more strict usage they are distinguished.
In the socialist schools, the state is a special organization of force: it is an organization of violence for the suppression of some class. The exploiting classes need political rule to maintain exploitation, in the selfish interests of an insignificant minority against the vast majority of people. The exploited classes need political rule in order to completely abolish all exploitation. The proletariat needs state power, a centralised organisation of force, an organisation of violence, both to crush the resistance of the exploiters and to lead the enormous mass of the population -the peasants, the petty bourgeoisie, and semi-proletarians in the work of organising a socialist economy.
Country is the geographical area.
Nation designates a people. However, nationally and internationally there is confusion pertaining to what defines a state, in international law.
State refers to set of governing institutions with sovereignty over a definite territory.
State (law)
The term state has several meanings in law:
1. In private international law and conflict of laws, the state can refer to a well defined jurisdiction ,with its own set of laws and courts. This jurisdiction may either be a sovereign, independent state, or a part (state, province, territory, etc) of such a state.
2. In public international law, state most commonly refers to a sovereign state, which is the direct subject of international law.
Every state within meaning (2) above is a state. Within meaning (1) above, the reverse does not hold. .or example, the United States is a state under both definitions, but California is a state only under the first.
This article is primarily about the first definition:
For the purposes of public international law and private international law, a state is a defined group of people, living within defined territorial boundaries and more or less subject to an autonomous legal system exercising jurisdiction through properly constituted courts. The usage of the term state rather than nation and country, refers unambiguously to the legal government of a territory, rather than to its people or culture. However, the term ìcountryî is still sometimes used in this way; see for example section 4 of Domicile Act 1982 which defines ìcountryî as including any state, province or other territory that is, one of two or more territories that together form a country .
The civilized portion of the earth is divided up into certain units of territory in each of which a particular law proper to that territory alone prevails, and that territory is for legal purposes a unit. What determines the state? It has been seen that the existence of separate legal units within the dominions of a single sovereign state is in fact, the result of historical accidents. The use of the word state for this purpose is not universally accepted .Some countries and individual authors use country, territorial unit, law unit or law district. In the Australian federation, each state and territory is a law district. The choice of law-rule may select the law of a country that contains more that one legal system. There must be rules to determine which of the several possible laws might apply.
States with more than one legal system, such as Iraq
1. Where a state comprises several territorial units, each of which has its own rules of law in respect of contractual obligations, each territorial unit is to be considered as a country for the purposes of identifying the law applicable under this convention.
2. A state within which different territorial units have their own rules of law in respect of contractual obligations is not bound to apply this convention to conflicts solely between the laws of such units.
State and geography, politics, economics, sociology
For the purposes of disciplines such as geography ,politics, economics and sociology, it is appropriate to consider the world as divided into countries and because it is of little significance in those disciplines, simply to add that some of these countries may be federated or otherwise divided into regions or provinces. The focus is on the broad cultural patterns of political allegiance that arise by virtue of citizenship and nationality, the so called social contract is that the state, in its technical sense, will defend that interests of its citizens in return for the loyalty of its citizens.
The power to make law is an aspect of sovereignty ,but is does not follow that the law is the same throughout a single sovereignís territory. Differences may arise in two ways a) as new territory is added to old ,or b) as two countries are combined under a single sovereign. When new law is to be made ,the sovereign may legislate for only part of the territories either because the territory has been divided into separate units, each with their own legislative bodies, or because a single legislative body limitís a new law to only a portion of the territory. Public international law exists to provide a framework within which the relationship between sovereign nation states can be regulated.
Factors in the creation of a State
Law
Law is the set of rules or norms of conduct which forbid ,permit or mandate specified actions and relationships among people and organizations, the authority upon which legal rules rest and the extent to which they are formally codified varies between jurisdictions. But most legal systems profess to be engaged in an attempt to assure impartial treatment of those suspected of breaching the rules and to bring about justice. However, some argue that certain legal systems -such as those operating in dictatorships and monarchies - are inherently unjust because they afford majority power to the few. Law is typically administered through a system of courts in which judges preside. Most countries rely upon the police to enforce the law. Police officers most often must be professionally trained in law enforcement before they are permitted to act under the code law.
Civil law
In reference to legal traditions, civil law usually means a system of law which is codified and subsequently applied and interpreted by judges .
Customary law
Customary laws are systems of law that have evolved largely on their own within a given country and have been adapted to meet the needs of the particular culture. Note that customary law may also be relevant within jurisdictions following another legal tradition in fields or subfields or law where no legislative enactment exists. The only countries in the world today that use this legal system are Mongolia and Sri Lanka.
Religious law
Many religions contain a body of law - for example, Sharia in Islam and various forms of Canon law for different denominations of Christians. In some cases these are intended purely as individual moral guidance ,whereas in other cases they are intended and may be used as the basis for a countryís legal system. This can be in two ways:
A. In countries such as Kurdistan, the religious code of Islam is integral to the countryís legal system. In this case civic law is the religious law .Some countries ,where the state exists as a vehicle for a religion-based culture ,are known as theocracies, and historically run by kings.
B. In countries such as the United States ,there is no national religion. However, a religious heritage and cultural background is strongly influential in the formation of a legal system.
September 25, 2006 8:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Dr Kamal Mazhar Ahmad: Every Kurd would love to see an independent homeland
KurdishMedia.com - By Mufid Abdulla
Dr Kamal Mazhar Ahmad, a well known Kurdish historian, who is visiting the UK for a short break, has kindly agreed to give an interview to KurdishMedia.com
Manchester (KurdishMedia.com) 23 September 2006: Russian socialist leaders claimed that one novel -ëMotherí - by Maxim Gorky, brought the October Revolution in Russia forward by 6 yearís. We have to ask ourselves what will be the impact of our historian, Professor Kamal Mazhar Ahmad on the Kurdish struggle and revolution, for example: ëKurdistan, in the years of the first world warí and the latest book ëKirkuk and the surrounding areaí. The man became the symbol of Kurdish history and is remembered for his devotion to his profession. We found him in Manchester, on a short visit to the UK. I am grateful for his time and for answering our questions.
MA: How can the Kurdish Diaspora write the history in a way that can be useful for future generations?
KMA: It is very important to pay attention to Kurdish history because Kurdish history has been distorted, the likes of which I have never seen. There are some very important ëpagesí still not revealed to our people. I believe the Kurdish Diaspora can play a very important role in translating the history of the Kurds into other languages. It is essential for the historian to know other languages. In the old days, in the era of Saddam, in the universities one never had a chance to learn in or about other languages.
For most of my books, I relied heavily on English sources; I found a lot of important documents and reports in these books. This makes my books more desirable in the eyes of historians and non-Kurdish experts.
English historians have paid good attention to the Kurds and to Kurdistan, and have published many special reports, essays, documents etc. , this material is held in their libraries, and we can refer to this material, use this material, all the time. Also, we can look for the unanswered questions about our history.
Nevertheless, not everybody can be a historian. One of the most important principles, the historian has to be neutral. You have to be neutral when you write about your nationís history. You have to work very hard, you are looking to build Kurdish history on documentary evidence nothing else.
It is not end of the world if our people make mistakes. Every nation historically, has made some mistakes. Therefore, in order to learn the lessons from our mistakes, we have to be very honest in analysing our history. I have to admit, we cannot control all our feelings completely, but we have to discuss in an objective way. We have to uncover, with all the mistakes, without distortion then we can take a lesson from it. One of the famous British historians, Tonybee imposed a lot of principles for the historian to obey, when writing history.
MA: The history of the Kurds is not very clear, and has always been mixed with the history of other nations. What we can do to make it straight and bring clarity to the international community.
KMA: We have a considerable amount of good historical publications. Sharaf Khan Batlisy, a famous Kurdish historian is most important. Historians did their PhD on Sharaf Khanís books. For example, in the 1960ís Vasileva, working in Leningrad wrote thousands of words on the subject, in Russian. There is a real potential for translating these works into foreign languages, especially English.
Other Kurdish historians, Amin Zhaki Beg and Mahmood Bayazidi are the most important historians in nineteenth century. These publications are basically the most powerful sources of Kurdish history. Rafiq Hilmiís memoirs are very significant, published in six parts; the contents deserve to be translated, particularly into English.
Jamil Rosbayani wrote his memoirs in six books, he managed to translate one of them into Arabic. I wish he had been able to translate the rest. Unfortunately, Jamil Rosbayani was murdered by the Baghdad regime and had no chance to do it. The contents are well elaborated; he brings the whole world of the old days of Sheik Mahmood and his politics, and the attitude of the English towards the Kurds and Kurdistan, alive. I have all six books in my library, and other people have too.
The Jhen centre for publication and printing, re-publish all the old books they rescue from decaying. Recently, the Department of Art and Culture in Baghdad published a new edition of Amin Zhaki Begís work with the help and assistance of Mr Mohidien Zhangana. Originally, the book had been written in the Kurdish language, and then translated into Arabic by Mohamed Aki Awni, in Cairo in 1939. Mr Mohidien Zhangan asked me to write the preface for it. I did, and in great detail. Ahmed Khojaís words deserve translation into foreign languages because of their content and historical aspect - the old days of Sheik Mahmood and the English. He was one of the closest to the Sheik and his authority. A lot of people have studied in his special school of thought, and follow his path.
MA: Your latest book on Kirkuk has significant impact on this stage of Kurdish struggle to get through to their ultimate goal of self- determination. We would like to know the history of that book and how far you have gone.
KMA: The fist time this book ëKirkuk and surrounding areaí was published and translated into English. Dr Mahmud Othman [Kurdish MP in Iraqi Assembly] told me in Baghdad that Mr Jalal Talabani [the current Iraqi President] gave each member of the Iraqi council a copy of the book, together with a map - when they came to discuss the case of Kirkuk.
I started writing the book in 1992, in a very secret way. My original ambition about Kirkuk goes back to 1959 when I was a student in Baghdad. In 1959 I found an article by a Turkmen writer in the Ahali newspaper. In that article, the history and origin of Kirkuk had been distorted to that extent that the writer claimed that Kirkuk is not a Kurdish city, but a Turkmen city. When I read it, I was very unhappy, agitated, and I decided to reply to it in six parts. My reply was published in the same newspaper, Ahali. One of my close friends in Kirkuk, Sheik Marf Qaradagi told me that in Kirkuk people took it straightaway and bought it, and they passed copies of it to their friends, due to problems with publishing in of those days. I was very happy when I heard that.
At this time Mr Jamil Roshbayani was in the city of Mandali; he wrote an article in the same newspaper praising my article. He told the readers that he didnít have anything to add because his teacher [KMA] elaborated everything. I was very happy when I heard that Jamil Roshbayani calling me his teacher, even though I was a student, and of course, considered him to be my teacher. For me, at that time, this was equivalent to a Nobel Prize. That is why I will never forget it; it will always stay my memory.
One of my lecturerís at university, Dr Naji Abbas, one of the most serious lecturerís in the university, called me to his office and talked about my good article, and said, ìwell done!î. Then I realised that my article, and my writing, carried weight. From that day, I realised the importance of ëKirkukÖí, and from that day, I decided to stick to it. In my two PhDís, which are mainly about the Kurdish movement, I have written thousands of pages on Kirkuk. Kirkuk is a centre of our Kurdayati, most of the organisations have been built in Kirkuk and it is the most important subject.
In 1992 I decided to write a book about Kirkuk and the surrounding areas, such as Khanaqin, Sanjar and all other areas which the old regime tried to take back from our people. Friends and other people used to ask me which one of my books is classified at the top. I thought at the time ëKurdistan in the Years of the First World Warí. The book has been translated into Arabic by Mohammed Mula Karim and translated into English by Akram Jaff. I remember yourself [Mufid] sent me a copy, and I do realise why you took the preface out of it, because of the danger of the regime in those days.
Now, if anybody asked me what my favourite book is, I would say, without any hesitation, that Kirkuk is my best book, and I will be proud of it for the rest of my life, because I wrote that book in the very difficult days and circumstances, together with very decent resources and references. For the first time I showed to the whole world that Kirkuk is a city of Kurdistan.
MA: Kirkuk is important because of itís economic and political strategies. Can we say that this makes us more hopeful of building our own state sooner rather than later.
KMA: I am very happy, and extremely optimistic about the whole situation. Kirkuk is a part of Kurdistan, and the people in that area make me feel more confident, due to their way of thinking about Kurdayati [Kurdish political movement]. I was teaching for about one year in Khanaqin with other lecturers - Dr Nasren Fakhri and Dr Abdulrahman Haji Marf. During my teaching, I realised the feelings of people in Gharmian are very different from any other part of Kurdistan. I love them and I adore them; ostensibly, the grave repression generates the higher patriotism. Every Kurd would love to see their independent homeland. But there are certain conditions for that movement. It is easy to raise a slogan but difficult to implement it. The most difficult problem, the geographic location of the Kurds, has never helped. Independent Kurdistan is historical in vitality. Kurds have more hope and more friends than ever before. The attitude of the Superpowers has changed, and for the first time our leaders have been invited to the White House and the Oval Office, which has never happened in the past. We played a pivotal role in helping the Allied Forces In the last decade luck has been on our side. The most serious enemy, Saddam, has gone, and the second piece of luck. The Turkish state did not allow the Allied Forces to go through Turkey, which has made Kurds more acceptable to the USA and the UK, even though the UK was an obstacle in creating our Kurdish homeland.
Thank you once again for your time, and I would like to wish you every success for your future work, and continued good health.
September 25, 2006 8:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Iraq is already in the path of division and parties are rather managing the division right now. in the end, all parties will benefit from such a division. Iraq is an artificially formed country which was glued together by force. Kurds resisted its creation from day one. Now that the force is gone, it will go towards natural solution of three min-state with some form of alliance.
September 11, 2006 7:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
dear i have reach a latter from africa so tell me its write
August 12, 2006 12:39 AM | Report Offensive Comments
The people in the Middle East should by now [given historical events starting with Noah's Ark, parting of the Red Sea, Alexander the Great, the Crusades, Napoleon's invasion, the Caliphates, the Ottoman Empire, post WW I mandates and the awarding of real estate by the British of parts of Palestine as well as the formation of special frontiers for special interests] accept that the best solution following past practices is to let "foreigners" again determine the size, mixture and composition of the new "realities" in the Middle East.
Its time to reward all those who aspire to be fair and judicious in that part of the world thereby acomplishing a major step for a peaceful and stress free global community.
In this regard Iraq should be split up into three distinct and sovereign states and given to the three nations that examplify democratic ideals and military superiorities. The Northern Part of Iraq should be made into a separate state and attached to Israel. The Southern Part of Iraq should be given back to the UK and the middle part of Iraq should be administered by the USA for a period of 99 years. With the proviso that each new mini-iraq will receive $3 to $4 billion a year in US taxpayer's financial aid and a seat in the UN its a win win situation.
Actions to these ends need to be made asap since defeats of politicians such as Senator Lieberman are indicative of Al Qudda wins and democractic losses in free societies.
August 11, 2006 9:11 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Why are we trying to impose something by force? The problem with the future of Iraq has always been foreign intervention. Let Iraqi people decide their own fate for god sake! it is better than daily carnage , mayhem and bloodshed that we can see happen on the street every second. Sooner or later Iraq will be partitioned. Because that is what their inhabitants want.
Sweden
August 8, 2006 10:12 AM | Report Offensive Comments
IT'S TIME FOR YOUR COUNTRY TO SETTLE AND LIVE LIFE ON LIFES TERMS.
It would seem that the new Democratic Style of life in Iraq was voted in by 3 kinds of major groups of people who can live in peace within Iraq under a very bad leader so why can you not lead yourself?.
-
What is wrong with eveyone in Iraq yes all of you living in a 3 type State system with in the one Federal Government?
-
Answer: Nothing at all.
-
It maybe the best for peace in the Nation for the next 5 or 10 years and that is by far more accomplished than killing 100 + each week over no gain? Yes None.
-
Do something for your Country Iraq!! you all say you love it show us you do... You have all of your children, cultures, Religions, History and all life foward to guide you so why not start today, live your life now.
-
If you must remove agression let your people ask by vote what they wish or who they wish removed and other Nations must learn to respect all of that total voice from the young growing country.
-
So please find peace and live it for us to be proud of you and your people forward for years to come from this your last year of war, 2006.
-
May one's Higher Power Guide you to Living in Peace with all mandkind in your Country with the support of all Nations on Earth Forward.
-
With much Respect for all of the Iraq People I, Remain.
-
James Nelson
Appleton WI.
August 8, 2006 9:55 AM | Report Offensive Comments
I do not think so. The debated exercise is evidence of failure of US policy and military misadventure. It reminds me of British Empire's policy of "Divide and Rule" . Before leaving India in 1947, for example, British fanned the Hindu/Muslim religious passion which ultimately led to creation of Pakistan (West Pakistan and East Paklstan separated by over 2000 miles. East Pakistan later became Bangladesh). Same British Empire divided the land of Palestine into 4 parts, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel and remaining Palestine which is the cause of all troubles. US adopted the similar policy - and it created North Korea and South Korea, North and South Vietnam, East Germany and West Germany (which are not united, thanks to Helmut Kohl) in the name of avoiding or defeating communism. In the name of WMD, it launched invasion of Iraq twice, killing over 300,000 iraqi soldiers, civilians etc. When no WMD were found, US tried to conceal the failure by suggesting that they wanted to remove Saddam Hussain's dictatorship. Now that Saddam was removed, there was no need to remain in Iraq, but it continued under another pretext of spreading democracy. When the exercise of democratic election failed, US wanted to conceal the failure by pointing fingers at sectarian violence which it can not stop. US is therefore preparing ground of dividing Iraq based on religion, caste and oil, with rich oil part of Iraq to be given to Shia muslims as reward for its role in assisting US in continuing its occupation. This exerise is almost similar to division of master India into two parts - Pakistan and India as it is known today. US destroyed entire nation of Iraq by bombarding 2000 to 5000 pound bombs at almost every nook and corner of Iraq and reduce it into ashes and rubbles. Iraq was certainly better of under the rule of Saddam Hussain. There were no violence similar to what we witness today. Democracy or no democracy, Saddam Rule was 1000 times better than the current Anglo-American occupation of Iraq. Iraq is classic example of the practice of old policy of "Divide and Rule" and Anglo-American brand of "Rubble Democracy" under which US and UK roam about the world, attack nations under any pretext, reduce whole nation into ashes and rubbles by using 2000 lbs to 5000 lbs bombs, including Bunker Busting Bombs (GBU-28) and then talk about rushing help in the form of UN Aid, deploying International Troops, medicines, and food etc, and finally spread rumours to divide the once beautiful country into several parts based on ethnicity, religion, and other unacceptable reasons. These are all used to conceal their colossal failure in bringing about change. Iraq exercise proves colossal failures and it also proves beyond doubt that Saddam's autocratic rule was hundred times better than Anglo-American brand of "Rubble democracy". America has always fought war in other nation's land, and NEVER on its own land, be it Korea peninsula, Middle East (Iraq, Lebanon through its proxy Israel), Vietnam, Cambodia, Japan and Germany, Yugoslavia (which was ultimately divided into several parts). The world will be better off if both US and UK stop meddling into affairs of every nation and adopt the simple principle of "Live and Let Live". There is therefore no need to divide Iraq - better quit Iraq gracefully and admitting mistake - nothing wronng in it - and restore the rule of Saddam Hussain who proved to be much better leader than the current occupiers like US. At least, the Iraqi were happily living their life with full liberty not available under any other Islamic state, and Iraqi women were enjoying much better freedom than other Arab nations like Iran, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.
August 8, 2006 7:25 AM | Report Offensive Comments
I do not think so. The debated exercise is evidence of failure of US policy and military misadventure. It reminds me of British Empire's policy of "Divide and Rule" . Before leaving India in 1947, for example, British fanned the Hindu/Muslim religious passion which ultimately led to creation of Pakistan (West Pakistan and East Paklstan separated by over 2000 miles. East Pakistan later became Bangladesh). Same British Empire divided the land of Palestine into 4 parts, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel and remaining Palestine which is the cause of all troubles. US adopted the similar policy - and it created North Korea and South Korea, North and South Vietnam, East Germany and West Germany (which are not united, thanks to Helmut Kohl) in the name of avoiding or defeating communism. In the name of WMD, it launched invasion of Iraq twice, killing over 300,000 iraqi soldiers, civilians etc. When no WMD were found, US tried to conceal the failure by suggesting that they wanted to remove Saddam Hussain's dictatorship. Now that Saddam was removed, there was no need to remain in Iraq, but it continued under another pretext of spreading democracy. When the exercise of democratic election failed, US wanted to conceal the failure by pointing fingers at sectarian violence which it can not stop. US is therefore preparing ground of dividing Iraq based on religion, caste and oil, with rich oil part of Iraq to be given to Shia muslims as reward for its role in assisting US in continuing its occupation. This exerise is almost similar to division of master India into two parts - Pakistan and India as it is known today. US destroyed entire nation of Iraq by bombarding 2000 to 5000 pound bombs at almost every nook and corner of Iraq and reduce it into ashes and rubbles. Iraq was certainly better of under the rule of Saddam Hussain. There were no violence similar to what we witness today. Democracy or no democracy, Saddam Rule was 1000 times better than the current Anglo-American occupation of Iraq. Iraq is classic example of the practice of old policy of "Divide and Rule" and Anglo-American brand of "Rubble Democracy" under which US and UK roam about the world, attack nations under any pretext, reduce whole nation into ashes and rubbles by using 2000 lbs to 5000 lbs bombs, including Bunker Busting Bombs (GBU-28) and then talk about rushing help in the form of UN Aid, deploying International Troops, medicines, and food etc, and finally spread rumours to divide the once beautiful country into several parts based on ethnicity, religion, and other unacceptable reasons. These are all used to conceal their colossal failure in bringing about change. Iraq exercise proves colossal failures and it also proves beyond doubt that Saddam's autocratic rule was hundred times better than Anglo-American brand of "Rubble democracy". America has always fought war in other nation's land, and NEVER on its own land, be it Korea peninsula, Middle East (Iraq, Lebanon through its proxy Israel), Vietnam, Cambodia, Japan and Germany, Yugoslavia (which was ultimately divided into several parts). The world will be better off if both US and UK stop meddling into affairs of every nation and adopt the simple principle of "Live and Let Live". There is therefore no need to divide Iraq - better quit Iraq gracefully and admitting mistake - nothing wronng in it - and restore the rule of Saddam Hussain who proved to be much better leader than the current occupiers like US. At least, the Iraqi were happily living their life with full liberty not available under any other Islamic state, and Iraqi women were enjoying much better freedom than other Arab nations like Iran, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.
August 8, 2006 7:02 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Iraq was created in a wrong way; among others by imposing Kurds into the new Iraqi state was a big mistake in 1920ís. The last 80 years has been disaster for the Kurds. Iraqi history show how big the failure of that annexation was. Now the coalition leaded by USA make the same mistake as the British did in the 20ís.
The American solution may keep Iraq together in the short run, but Iraq can not stand in the long run. It is better to face the reality now and divide Iraq into three independent states.
August 7, 2006 3:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
I believe the divided Iraq to three country be better then forst ethinecs into a country that doesnt means proudness to leave togerther anymore.Becouse KURDISTAN never be part of Arabland,and kurdish people disagree to Arabised.
Since, last centry Arabs tried in many ways to mailt Kurdish by religions into them cultuers,without successful.Kurdish ledership must have strong relations with U.S.A Foriegn policy and make a bridge to Isaiels indeed to defanse themself among the shered enemies.
August 7, 2006 1:35 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Do not you guys be so swollen with pride and joyful that the Iraqi president is a Kurd!. As soon as the US get out Iraq, so will be your Kurdish president kicked out. The Kurds are the biggest threat to Islam after Isreal.
Syria
August 6, 2006 9:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
I have been saying, and writing; that South Kurdistan should have been Recognized as an Independent state from the beginning in 2003. I went on even writing three recent current event books on this topic: 1- Independent South Kurdistan, 2- IRAQ WARS, 2- Kirkuk Kurdistan. You may read their subtitles, and further details in my Website at: www.tataiiforcongress.com or type "Steve Tataii" in amazon.com or barns & Nobles websites. When Michael Gorbachev of USSR could Liberate more than 12 nations at the stroke of a pen in 1989, even Liberating 2 out of the 3 stateless nations of Armenia and Azerbaijan, but Kurdistan remaining captive due to its complex division among 4 usurper or invading regimes of Turkey, which was itself an artificial state created after WWI, and 3 others of the same in Iraq, Syria, and North West of Iran; then why should it become such a grand scale decision making for us in USA to at least Liberate South Kurdistan to be an Official UN member State? This would have quickly reduced the defunct artificial IRAQ into the SOUTH and CENTER, which are both ethnic ARAB parts. What we could have done then in 2003 can still be done now, because we have failed to understand the meaning and the reality of ETHNIC peoples in that most ancient land, and instead of trying to figure out how to stop Sectarian violence, we must have, and we must still be promoting peace and brotherhood among the two ARABS to make their own ARAB nation, which I call it "Arabistan" in my books, and help them to understand every nation or group within an ethnic people has the right to choose her own sect or even religion. Religion must not be used by others to divide and conquer. The divide and Conquer was the old colonialsm tactic, but we no longer live in that era. Even if dividing Iraq into 3 independent States can bring peace and stability, then be it. We can't have it both ways. If we remain in the present status, and try to solve "SECTARIAN" problems, we will only inflame its fires more, and we'll be forced to divide Iraq into 3, but if we try to create peace, and brotherhood between the two ARAB sects, then we may have a chance for 2 State solution. One South Kurdistan, and the other let's say Arabistan. Either way, South Kurdistan's Independence should not be delayed while we're finding a solution to end ARAB sectarian dilemma. KURDS have had enough of wars, genocides, and human catastrophes by ARABS alraedy, and it is most unfair and BIGOTTED, if we're imposing such a requirement on Kurds of South Kurdistan, whom have had peace and Self-Rule in the past 15 years. Once Kirkuk, and Kurdish Mosul Provinces have returned to Kurdistan, there are no other instabilities to let South Kurdistan become an independent State. For comments please call 808 845 5716 or write to: tataii2003congress@msn.com Please don't forget; that I'm in the middle of campaigning until September 23, and again hopefully till November 7, 2006, and may get back to you with a delay, but I will get back to you at my available time. Thanks, Warm Regards, Steve Tataii. Website at: www.tataiiforcongress.com
August 6, 2006 9:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
The genocide continues in South Kurdistan
The United Nationís Genocide Convention of December 1948 offers a definition of genocide, stated in article II lit. C, that closely mirrors the current situation in South Kurdistan. The situation, in which the people of South Kurdistan live, harms and destroys their physical and psychological integrity. The populationís suffering is because of their national identity, that is, because they are Kurds. Anyone living in the region over the last ten years can confirm that these conditions result from a policy of genocide that was developed and implemented by Saddam. This policy exists today even though Saddam continues to evade punishment.
The scarce sources of water and food available to the people of South Kurdistan are widely contaminated causing death and serious illness. Malnutrition is the rule, not the exception. The appalling state of health care in the region only serves to spread illness, as there is a tremendous lack of medical equipment and medicine. Many in the region must make the long journey to Badgered, the capital of the Al-Anfal genocide campaign, if they wish to receive medical treatment.
Electricity is also another scarce commodity in South Kurdistan. The delivery of other energy resources such as fossil fuels is controlled by the Iraqi regime which uses such powers to carry out crimes of genocide against the people.
Agricultural production has been brought to a virtual standstill as farmers have no access to foreign markets for their products. Further, they are unable to sell to the United Nations which chooses instead to import food from abroad. The UN is destroying agricultural production with our own hard currency from the oil-for-food program. South Kurdistan is under double embargo, first by the United Nations and then by the Iraqi regime.
The depressed economy has produced large numbers of unemployed young people who feel useless and hopeless. Many take the life-threatening journey to try to reach a rich country in the West. Still others are drawn to radical political groups who take advantage of the youthís desperation for their own purposes.
The people of South Kurdistan know who is responsible for their inhuman situation but they are powerless. Kurds, as the victims of the genocide, suffer more than those who commit the crime of genocide against them. The Iraqi regime lives only under one embargo, that of the UN.
Kurds have the additional embargo of no free access to the outside world. The Iraqis can travel to many countries without restrictions. They have unlimited access to Jordanian and Syrian border gates from where they can simply ride a Boeing and travel abroad. Their access to the Gulf gives wide possibilities to exchange goods with the out side world and even to smuggle their oil.
The telecommunication network with the outside world is working and many representatives of foreign states and companies are sitting in Baghdad. None of this is available for Kurds who, as the main victims of the regime, have to beg for fuel and most other items from Badgered. People in Southern Kurdistan are literally cut off from outside world. The border gate with Turkey resembles the eye of a needle. Indeed, it is easier to travel around the world than it is to cross the border gate of Ibrahim Khalil.
The United Nations, which is well informed of our situation, has simply locked our money in foreign accounts and treat us as if we were refugees and beggars in our own land. They bring us contaminated and expired food. They employ foreign nationals for large sums of our money while Kurdish experts are out of work or badly paid.
The United States and its allies know what is going on in Kurdistan but they are not there to liberate people or to bring freedom and democracy. They are there to secure more prosperity and power for their own people. They are interested in our oil but not in our faces. The same forces, who provided Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons and the means to deliver them, are today denying us our right to live in dignity as human beings.
Kurdish leaders in South Kurdistan havenít reacted properly to end the plight of the Kurds. It is like they are sitting in glass houses. They fear that somebody would remind them of their illegal foreign accounts or the hundreds of missing and tortured Kurds. So they prefer to remain silent hoping that the United States will let them rule like other corrupt regimes.
Kurdish leaders will not lose very much if they asked for the lifting of sanctions against the victims of genocide. Is it a crime to be well-fed with our own money? Kurdish leaders should develop courage and raise their voices in the interest of their own people.
Yes of course, they have to do something before they ask for recognition by the international community. They have to create independent institutions, unite the administration and hold democratic elections to be legitimised by the people.
No one will give billions of dollars into their hands, while the revenues of Ibrahim Khalil are the subject of many disagreements between PUK and PKK. The sanctions should be lifted and the work of the Kurdish administration closely controlled by an international body, as is the case in Bosnia and Kosovo.
August 6, 2006 3:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Is Iraq really ìIndivisibleî?
We are accustomed to reading or hearing statements about the ìindivisibilityî of Iraq from Iraqis of all persuasions, in-and-out of government. The latest such statement comes, not surprisingly, from one of the leaders of the Iraqi Opposition in an article about his vision of a unified, ìdemocratic,î and, certainly, ìindivisible,î post-Saddam Iraq. There is, of course, the obligatory call for building a ìdemocraticî Iraq; however, in this and other Iraqi-grown versions of democracy there will be no room for any discussion of the ethnic or religious diversity of Iraq as if the country were a homogeneous society and not an ethnic patchwork imposed on the people by force. One cannot but ask, ìWhat kind of democracy is it when you call for submerging ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and historical differences in the so-calledînational interestî(Read: ìArab interestî)? As far as Kurds are concerned, Big Brother will always be in charge in Iraq, democracy or not.
Division of Iraq into two independent States, Kurdistan and Iraq, would be the best thing that could ever happen to that country.
We are not surprised at all when we read or hear such views because when it comes to the Kurdish issue, an Iraqi is an Iraqi whether he is in or out of government. There may be a slight difference in approach among Iraqis regarding the Kurdish issue, but it is difficult to find many who would recognize the right of the Kurds to independence unequivocally and without any reservation even though those same Iraqis readily give this right to other oppressed nationalities that have less of a claim to independence than the Kurds do.
Iraqi Arabs have to ask themselves one fundamental question: Is the Kurdish demand of self-determination, including independence, legitimate or not? If their answer is ìYes,î which is extremely unlikely, then there is no problem because that means that the Kurds and the Arabs of Iraq can live side by side as two sovereign neighboring nations with good, neighborly relations with all that the word ìneighborî implies. But if their answer is ìNo,î then, logically, we could justifiably say that all of Iraq should go back under Ottoman / Turkish rule, which used to be the case until the end of World War 1. Both Kurds and Arabs would reject this idea, of course, as they should.
However, we have to ask Iraqi Arabs if there is any difference between the injustice of putting back all of Iraq under Turkish rule and that of keeping the Kurds under Arab rule, as has been the case for the last eighty years. Hasnít the Iraqi Arab rule been much more horrible and inhumane in its treatment of the Kurds than the Ottoman Turkish rule was in its treatment of Arabs, Kurds, Armenians and other nationalities? Who exactly committed genocide in Kurdistan by eliminating a quarter of a million Kurds in the murderous Anfal operations of the late eighties if not the Iraqi regime? Who used weapons of mass destruction freely and in many places culminating in the massacre of 5,000 innocent men, women and children in Halabja if not the regime of Arab Iraq? Who dynamited and razed to the ground practically every village and small town in Kurdistan if not the Iraqi regime? Who is practicing ethnic cleansing and the racist Arabization of the Kurdish areas still under Iraqi government control if not the Arab Iraqi regime? And who has been threatening the liberated part of Kurdistan with invasion, retribution, and re-annexation from the day it was liberated a decade ago if not the Iraqi regime? And how about the countless other unrecorded daily crimes that were perpetrated against the Kurdish people in order to break their spirit and cow them into submission? Surely, these crimes were not committed by people coming from outer space. Havenít we been fooled long enough by the big lie of ìhistorical brotherhoodî and ìcommon historyî between Kurds and Arabs in Iraq?
The Kurds want to get out from under Arab Iraqi rule just as the Arabs wanted to get out from under Ottoman Turkish rule almost a century ago. If the Arab revolution against Turkification and Ottoman Turkish rule and for independence was legitimate then, and it certainly was, why isnít the Kurdish revolution against Arabization and Arab rule and for independence from Iraq legitimate now, almost a century after the Arabs gained their independence?
We wish to ask one simple question of members of the Iraqi Opposition as well as ordinary Iraqis and even supporters of the brutal regime: Would they accept to live under Kurdish rule (not that the Kurds have ever wanted or would ever want to rule Iraq)? There is no doubt that it would be impossible to find a single Iraqi who would be willing to live under Kurdish rule, or any other, for that matter. So, why do these same Iraqis expect the Kurds to live under an Arab rule that is known worldwide for its brutality and inhumanity? In fact, why should the Kurds want to live even within a post-Saddam, supposedly democratic, pie-in-the-sky Iraq when they can, and should, rule themselves in an independent and truly democratic Kurdistan much to the benefit of Kurds and Arabs alike? If some groups in the Iraqi Opposition cannot even bear to hear the name ìKurdistan,î and all believe that to talk about the right of the Kurds to have an independent country they can call their own is a taboo, what hope is there for the Kurds in a so-called future, democratic Iraq?
Given the horrible record of brutality and inhumanity of various Iraqi regimes towards the Kurds since the inception of that country eighty years ago, which culminated in the eighties, and given Kurdish resistance to Iraqi rule from the very beginning, Iraqis should not be surprised if the Kurds want not only to be free from their hateful, present rule but to have nothing to do with any kind of Iraq, democratic or not, under any circumstances.
The division of Iraq would not be detrimental to anyone; in fact, it would be beneficial to both Arabs and Kurds alike because it would end a century of bloodshed between them and put an end to a terrible crime that was committed against the Kurdish people when they were forced by colonial design into an unworkable union against their will. For here is an artificially created country with two distinct, main nationalities, and a few minorities, each with its own language, culture, history, ethnicity, traditions, and aspirations and yet one of these two nationalities is denied the right to be itself and is forced to become the other and serve the other against all the laws of Nature and God. And, as we all know, the result of this forced, unnatural, unequal, dehumanizing, and horrible union has been constant warfare between the two sides. Unless we think anew and undo the terrible mistakes of the past, we will continue to be victimized by the past.
It is high time for all those who have upheld the myth of the unity and territorial integrity of Iraq, including the Western Powers, to have the decency, humanity, courage, and wisdom to stop perpetuating a big injustice done to the Kurdish people when they were robbed of their right to Statehood and realize that the division of Iraq into two independent States, Kurdistan and Iraq, would be the best thing that could ever happen to that country.
August 6, 2006 3:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Kurds, the U.S. and Iraq
There has been a lot of discussion about the US and its intentions towards the Kurds and Iraq and what the Kurdish nation should do for its own survival and interest. The article is an outline to my view on this case.
It is imperative to recognise that in real life all the nations with specifically the US has always put their interest before every thing else including even the cooperation in slaughter, starvation of other people and cooperation with the most criminal regimes. In the mid 60s the US provided the list of over 200,000 Indonesian communist member to the military regime of general Suharto which then carried out a massacre in which half a million people were killed according to the UN reports. This was published last year by the US government and the official documents became public after the 30 rules. In the early 70s they did every thing possible to bring down the democratic government of Salvador Allendy in Chile.
In 1974 after using the Kurdish national movement against the Baíathist regime for their own short-term interest and then despite their promise of protection they abandoned the Kurdish nation to the onslaught of the Sadams genocidal regime and resulted in the mass killing of the Kurds.
In Henry Kisengerís biography; he was asked why is it that you abandoned the Kurds to the Iraqi regime his response was we are not charity business. When in 1988 the criminal Iraqi regime attacked Halabja with chemical weapons (it is very important to realise that the use of chemical weapons was used in many other areas in Iraqi Kurdistan and over many years but unfortunately there were no journalist in these area to film it was thanks to the Iranian journalist how were there at the time to film the gas attack and its aftermath) and annihilated over 5000 human being including many thousands of babies, children, women and men in less than one hour the US did not take this seriously and did not publicly and strongly condemn this act of barbarism. It did not move the US to even to ask for a UN inquiry about this hideous act.
In fact it had a good relation with the fascists in Baghdad until that is when Saddam wanted more and attacked Kuwait which in turn threatened USí interests in the area.
I believe that the US policy for Iraq as I have indicated over a year ago is simply is this: replace Saddam with another military dictator this will solve two crucial problems for the US; 1. Stop the Shiite gaining any real influence in a large part of Iraq due to US concern of increased Iranian influence as well as the Gulf States strong objection. 2. Stop the Kurds gaining independence or any real power over their land. This is solely because of the wishes of it strategic ally Turkey. We should not under estimate the very strong strategic relation between the US and the Turkish state.
Therefore, the Kurdish powers should not be used as s foot soldiers for US policy in Iraq and they should do the decent thing and at least unit and have one political body for foreign relation in order to have more influence in dealing with the outside world.
It is imperative that both Kurdish governments should agree now on at least a minimum platform for their own relationship in order not to have a bloody conflict later on. What will happen if the Iraqi regime collapses (quit likely) and the two Kurdish armies rushes toward Kirkuk and other parts of Kurdistan not under their control. Are they going to fight it of to impose their individual power?
It is time to agree on a political platform and not to be arrogant and ignorant as the loss to Kurdistan could be horrendous.
August 6, 2006 3:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
South-Kurdistan and the conditions of peace in the Middle East
South [Iraq]Kurdistan has a status recognized by the League of Nations and United Nations, Britain and the Republic of Turkey (formerly known as Vilayet of Mousul, Ottoman Empire).
Although it became part of Iraq with a plebiscite in 1936, its former name is still used. In 1958 when Iraq became an independent state, South Kurdistan incorporated to Iraq. Since then the Kurdish national problem exists.
Recent developments with international humanitarian intervention Iraqi Kurdistan (parallel 36) operation Northern Watch etc. brought Kurdistan de-facto State into reality.
Since April 1991 Kurdistan de-facto State is running its own affairs, opening universities, radio and TV stations, municipal elections, parliamentary elections, police and security forces, Central Banks, National Flag, National Anthem, Capital City, Government and Cabinet (Prime Minister and Ministries of Education, Finance and so on) and they have a web site on the internet: www.krg.org.
These are all the required conditions to declare statehood (Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, signed at Montevideo 26 Dec. 1933, Article 1):
1) A permanent population
2) A defined territory
3) A government
4) Capacity to enter relations with other states
However, if Kurdistan de-facto Stateís Government declares independence no country/state/government will recognize it. Why? This needs further analysis, and will be proven now.
Iraqi-Kurds have faced genocide, mass de-population/deportation and racist policies in Iraq. After the infamous Anfal campaigns no Iraqi-Kurd wants to live in Iraq, but because they know no one will recognize their independence, they are seeking a democratised Iraq, Kurdish rights guaranteed by constitution. The same problem exists with Turkey, Iran, and Syria too.
But this case is about Iraqi-Kurds.
Even though Iraqi-Kurds stay in Iraq, after removal of Saddam Hussain from power, with or without US intervention, the new Iraqi government will pursue the old policies of Arabisation of Kurdistan. This is because many reasons, such as the important resources, less powering policies of Kurdish regional administration due to Turkish, Iranian and Syrian pressure and Arab Baas ideology (idea that Kurdistan is an Arab land). There will never be peace in Iraq for these reasons, Iraq as an artificial entity is doomed to fail.
So the only realistic, and long-term solution is to create or accept the Kurdistan State in the Middle East.
This will force Turkey, Iran, Syria to give basic rights to Kurdish nation that they occupied, democratise them and bring back the security and stability into these countries. This will give us better chances to bring peace to the whole Middle East.
In Turkeyís case, it is a country that creates tension in the region. Turkey is the source for regional crisis because of it has problems with Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Georgia, Russia, Armenia, Iran, Iraq and Syria, promoting arm completion in the region.
In brief democratisation of Turkey, finding a solution to Kurdish question in Turkey is very important, and directly related to Iraqi-Kurds situation in Iraq.
Because Turkey is one of the countries unhappy to see Iraqi-Kurds getting statehood, it does everything possible to stop that happening. Sometime last month the Turkish Government said if Iraqi-Kurds declare their statehood, they would declare war on Iraq-Kurds.
A democratic Turkey will be a good neighbour to the Kurdish State. Unfortunately western countries do not want to see Turkey offended, so keep out of minority rights issues in the country.
There is a Kurdish political party - Kurdistan Workers Party PKK in Kurdish - that fought a guerrilla war against Turkey. Since Sept. 1 1998 when it declared its second ceasefire, there is no more armed struggle in Turkey. After the abduction of its leader Abdullah Ocalan, and his trial in Turkey, there is a very good chance to have peace in Turkey, and start a new dialogue between state and its minorities, new constitution, and democratisation process.
PKK peace offers are not getting enough encouragement because of its past, no one wants believe their sincerity or give them a chance to test this, and the chance to find a peaceful solution to Turkeyís problem is going to be missed. Every chance to peace deserves a try.
It is in the benefit of Iraqi-Kurds to support PKK in its struggle for peace and democracy. A democratic Turkish State is as much as important as Democratic Iraq in the ME. When Iraqi-Kurds ask for Democratic Iraq, it is good; but when Kurds in Turkey asks for Democratic Turkey it is a bad thing.
In another perspective the dismemberment of Iraq is very difficult, when you take into consideration of the pressure going to be created by Arab states of the region and other Islamic states, such as Indonesia or Malaysia.
This is another point that can be proven otherwise too. The case of east Timor is a good example.
The so called "War on Terrorism - now Iraq included" still preparing the base for the getting Saddam Hussein off the power, not a viable option due to Iranís role in the region too. According to Dual Containment strategy, the US needs Iraq - call it Saddam - to counterbalance the position of Iran in the Middle East.
However, this does not mean that the Kurds do such analysis in order to do nothing about the situation. The Iraqi-Kurds must have enough courage to change the status quo in the region in their benefit, and involve in intense diplomacy to have the right to Statehood.
These are historical moments in Kurdish politics:
Already existed Kurdish De-Facto State must be prepared to pass the test of recognition by the international community.
Finding the solution to Kurdish question is the first half of the peace process of the Middle East; the other half is Arab/Israel conflict.
After Iraqi-Kurds declare their independence the balance of the power will change in the benefit of peace and democracy loving camp. The peace seeking countries can rely on a reliable, democratic Kurdish state in pursuing further the interest of the peace and democracy in the region.
August 6, 2006 3:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Stop Turkish nationalism
Turkish nationalism is not only a big threat to the Kurdish nation and itsí very existence, it is a danger to the whole region. It threatens the Kurds, the Persians, the Greeks, the Russians as well as the Chinese. This dangerous tidal wave of nationalism, based solely on race, must be stopped before it gains more ground. The west may believe that Turkish Nationalism is a tool for Western expansion, from Eastern Europe to the Chinese border, but later they will regret their encouragement and protection of this monster as it grows and destabilizes the world.
In the Balkans, Turkish nationalism is a threat using the name of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is a threat in Greece and Bulgaria, using the Turkish minorities. In South Kurdistan they hide behind the name of the Turkomen Front and in Iran, behind the name of Azeris. In Chechnya, it is the Chechen freedom fighters and in Russia it disguises itself behind many ethic groups, namely, the Kirimian Turks, Karay, Kirimcak , Dagistan, Kabartay, Balkier, Karachay, Tqbassaran, Kabartay, Avar, Kumuk, Nogay, Tartar, Balkar, and, in China the Uigur Turks. Not to mention their activity in Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgizistan, and Kazakistan.
It is no secret, that when Devlet Bahceli, Turkeyís Nationalist Action Party leader and Deputy Prime Minister, recently visited Azerbaijan, he stated he was happy to visit "the real homeland," and said "Turkey and Azerbaijan are members of the same nation."
THE ORIGIN OF TURKISH NATIONALISM
The Turks are a Turanian race from Central Asia. A legend tells the story that they lived in the Altai Mountains of Central Asia and when a disaster hit that area, the Turks were lost in the mountains and could not find their way out. One day a grey wolf showed up and led them through a pass and they dispersed through all of Asia, The gray wolf has been their symbol ever since.
In truth, however, the Turks were a tribal people and lived in Central Asia as nomads. During the expansion of Islam in the 8th century, the Turks were captured, taken to Baghdad as slaves and introduced to Islam by the Abbasid dynasty. These soldier slaves continued their contact with family in Central Asia spreading the Middle East culture by word of mouth. Two centuries later, when the Mongols advanced on the Central Asian Steppes, the Turks, knowledgeable about the middle east, moved westward, eventually settling in Anatolia. After they defeated the Bysantines in 1071 the Turks became known as the Seljuk Dynasty and made Konya their capital. The Ottomans rose from the ashes of the Seljuks and moved their capital to Bursa and later, to Constantinople. The Ottoman Empire was a multi-cultural, multi-lingual and multi-ethnic empire. The ethnic minorities were able to preserve their culture and identity. Kurdistan, as a region, had autonomy and independence until the 18th century.
As Noam Chomsky in his Diyarbakir speech stated "There was a lot wrong with the Ottoman empire, but some things about it were basically correct: mainly, the fact that it left a high degree of regional autonomy and independence within a framework, which unfortunately was autocratic and corrupt and brutal, but we can eliminate that part, and the positive aspect of the Ottoman empire probably ought to be reconstructed in some fashion."
In Sir Telford Waughís book "Turkey: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow" he writes that: "....in his book, íThe Foundation of the Ottoman Empire,í Dr. H. A. Gibbons argues that calling the Osmanlis "Turks" is a historical error. He quotes díOhsson: íThe Osmanlis employ the term "Turk" in referring to a coarse and brutal man. As they attach to this word the idea of the most marked insult, no foreigner in the Empire ever allows himself to use it in speaking to them.í This was true up to the time of the Nationalist revival in Ankara. One is reminded of the remark of an English ladyís maid on hearing a tale of Turkish massacre: íThey donít call them Turks for nothing, Madam.í
"All through their history it seems as though the Osmanli Turks tried to forget their Turanian origin. They took their religion, Islam, and their Sheria law from the Arabs. Their language, originally the simple Chagatai speech of Central Asia, borrowed more and more from Arabic and Persian phraseology, until out of every ten words in a Turkish newspaper probably five would be Arabic and two Persian. Their proper names were nearly all Arabic - Osman, Mohammed, Hasan, Husein, etc. Toward the end of the last century there was a curious change of outlook. A movement known as Pan-Turanian began, with the idea of linking up with the Turkish races outside Turkey, in the Caucasus and Trans-Caucasia. Count Ostrorog, in his book, íThe Angora Reform,í noticed in Chapter V, attributes this movement partly to the influence of a French writer, Leon Cahun, who published a series of books for boys - Banniere blue, La Tueuse, Hassan le Janissaire - translated into Turkish and much read in Turkey; they held it to admiration the old Tartar conquerors under Jenghiz Khan, Hulagu, and Timurlen. The Mongols are exalted as the aristocracy of the East, superior to Chinese, Arabs, and Persians, and reference is made to the Grey Wolf legend of the common stock of Turks and Mongols. Be that as it may, the Turks began to call their boys by Turkish names - Alp Arslan, Buyuk Alp, Ertugrul, Kilic Arslan, in place of Arabic names generally used. .....The emancipation from Islam and the Sheria law, the Angora movement for the purification of the Turkish language, the Gray Wolf on the new postage stamp are all signs of the revived interest of the Turkish in his Turanian origin."
The first Turks who learned nationalism were the Jon Turks. Most of them were either students or military officers of the Ottoman Empire, studying in Europe. They were witness to the European Industrial Revolution as the national characteristics of modern European countries were forming. Germanyís progress, especially, was most admired.
THE INFLUENCE OF GERMAN NATIONALISM ON TURKISH NATIONALISM
Turkish nationalism was greatly influenced by German nationalism. Germany and Eastern European countries completed their industrial revolution after the western European countries. That is why their focus was more cultural and religious in nature rather than political like the other western Europeans.
Later, shortly after Germanyís economic progress around 1871, the Germans introduced racism into their political agenda. In the 1890ís Cardo Gobineaus, Darw Houston, Stewart Chamberlain and Paul de Lazarde, in their publications, insisted that the Aryan race was superior. They gave Germany as an example for the economic and cultural progress it made. For example, in the 1860ís England held %25 of world industrial production (approximately itís equivalent of todayís U.S. economic share of production). In 1913 it went down to %10 . The bottom line is Germanyís industrial productivity one year before the first world war was one and half of Englandís productivity. German nationalists used this fact
for their racial success. In the 19th century, in the industrial field, the progress Germany made to modernize the country helped it to build confidence to the extreme. It was that confidence that led the country to the extreme.
Germany appeared to be the strongest nation at the time, and a general characteristic of the Turks has always been their worship of the strongest, either individuals and or nations. After 1870, when the Union and Progress Party and nationalistic Turkish politicians started to gain momentum in the Ottoman Empire, they were so impressed by Germanyís economic success and that it served only for the benefit of the German Empire, the Union and Progress leadership dragged the Ottoman empire into WWI on the side Germany and brought disaster to the empire. The same characteristic is valid for todayís Turkish leadership.
Among Turkeyís Grand Assembly members of the 1920sí who had military background, more than half of them spoke German. It is obvious these parliamentarians had a German education and were influenced by the Germans. Until that time, Ottoman military officers were educated in the history of the Ottoman Empire. They gradually distanced themselves from Ottoman history, turning to pre-Ottoman Turkish history and their Central Asian origins. H.E. Allen, in the early 1930sí wrote, that during World War I, and after, it was very clear that German influence was effective in the Turkish state system - especially on ex-military personnel. A lot of these people looked at the west from a German point of view. Over all, from 1885 through WWI, the Germans taught the Turks their racist ideology in order to serve Germans interests. The founders of the Turkish Republic, both military and civilian, were indoctrinated with German racist ideology. These Turkish intellectuals, belonging to a still undeveloped nation, were not perfected in their intellectualism and what they learned from the Germans was implemented in an exaggerated way and was worse than what the Germans had.
TURKISH ULTRA NATIONALISTS ARE ORGANIZING TURKISH ETHNICS BASED ON RACE
Today, we see Turkey practicing this ideology within and even beyond Turkish boundaries. Within the boundaries "one nation, one race, one language, one thought" is in full force. This racist ideology has been heavily imposed on the Kurds in Turkey since the foundation of the Turkish Republic. The Kurdish people have been displaced by the millions; they continue to be killed, tortured, and jailed by the thousands. The disappearance of 17,000 people since 1990 is still a mystery. Turkish nationalism continues beyond itsí borders. The Turkish Republic hopes to organize every Turkish individual under a single banner. They are active in South Kurdistan and are organizing the Turkomans under the Turkmen Front to destabilize a de facto Kurdish state preparing these Turkmen groups for future plans. The Kurdish factions in South Kurdistan must be extremely careful and vigilant against the activities of the Turkmen Front. Kurdish parties must not act against each other. They will only be able to fight against Turkish racism by uniting. It is clear the Turkmen Front in South Kurdistan is an extension of the Turkish Gray Wolf organization which is seeking opportunities to inflict more harm in South Kurdistan. Turkmen citizens of Kurdistan, such as the Turkmen Front, should be treated like the rest of Kurdistanís citizens but should not be allowed to act as if they are above the law.
Past performances of Turkish Ultra Nationalists (Gray Wolves) have proven that they are an extension of the Turkish Secret Service and Turkish military personnel. They have been active in Chechnya, Bosnia and Herzagovina, Azerbeijan, and even in Turkistan and Uigur in China . Some of their members, who fought against the Russians in Chechnya, were involved in terrorist activities in Turkey and were never convicted of terrorism. A few years ago they highjacked a ferry, stormed into a Hotel in Istanbul and kept foreign tourists, including Russians, hostages. The terrorists were treated as commen criminals. More recently, May 4, a gunman stormed into an Istanbul hotel and took 13 people hostage to protest Russiaís military campaigns in Chechnya. The Turkish authorities, as well as the Turkish media, immediately identified him as mentally ill. Turkey claimed the hostage taker had no connection to Chechnya. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov accused Turkey of being soft on terrorism after the hostage-taking episode in Istanbul.
The Turkish Daily News, dated May 7, writes, "...Turkey has debated over whether or not to allow into the country a spokesman for the Chechnyan separatist cause, who is reportedly wanted by police worldwide." Ivanov was quoted by the Tass News Agency as saying, íSuch examples show double standards. The Turkish authorities show, to put it mildly, indulgence towards those extremists who fought in Chechnya or support those who are now fighting.... And do not take the necessary measures.í"
The same day, the Turkish Daily News reported that "A very interesting figure arrived in Ankara recently as part of his tour to seek support for Iranian Azerbaijanis in leading Western capitals, against the policies of Tehran, over 30 million Azerbaijanis of living in Iran."
"Dr. Mahmudali Cohreganli, the leader of the South Azerbaijan National Wakening Movement, spoke to the Turkish Daily News, describing the aim of his initiative.
"Cohreganli will meet with the secretary-general of the United Nations (UN) Kofi Annan in New York, after his meetings in Turkey.
"And in Ankara, where he arrived upon the invitation of the Turkish Gray Wolves and Azervbaijani Culture Center, he was scheduled to be received by the representatives of all political parties.:
"... The Southern Azerbaijan issue has a strategic importance because of the future of the Turkish worldí says Cohreganli, in reference to former Azerbvaijani leader Ebulfehz Elcibey, who believes that the road to the Turkish world passes through Tabriz."
On April 15, the Turkish Daily News writes, "Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji arrived in Ankara on Monday April 15 to discuss trade and terrorism. One of the Chinese Premierís main topics was to discuss with the Turkish authorities about ethnic Uighur Turkish separatists battling for an independent state of East Turkistan in Chinaís northwest region of Xinjian. Mr. Rongji told Turkish authorities that the Uighurs plotted their attacks against China from within Turkey."
The KDP Dailyís Birayeti reported On May 17 during a Turkish security forces incursion into South Kurdistan in what they called an operation against Kurdish Guerillas from North Kurdistan, the security forces killed two Kurdish citizens and detained 47 others. The Turkish security forces took these Kurds from the South to a military base in Turkey. They tortured them and had the detaineesí hair cut and later handed them over to the Kurdish Democratic Party Authorities at the border gate.
This latest international act of terrorism by the Turkish state should not go unpunished. It should be condemned at the highest level by the Kurdish administration in the south. The case should be taken to the UN Security Council. The Kurdish administration should assist these victims of Turkish state terrorism to take their case to the European Human Rights court for justice and compensation.
These activities clearly define Turkeyís role in state-sponsored terrorism. It is not only practiced on Kurds in Turkey, but also on Kurds in South Kurdistan and many other parts of the world. The Kurds can only fight against Turkish nationalism by unifying and cooperating by and with all Kurdish organizations.
August 6, 2006 3:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Kurdish State without Kirkuk is fine by Turkey
Informed Sources state that Hussein Qifriq Aughlu, a high ranking officer in Turkish army, has told Paul Wolfowitz, the Assistant Secretary of USA Defence Minister, that Turkey would interfere directly if a Kurdish State, which included Kirkuk, was established.
During the meeting at Turkish Army Head Quarter, he pointed to Kurdistan City of Kirkuk on an Iraqi Kurdistan map and said: If a condition, not acceptable to us, developed in North Iraq, especially in Kirkuk as the consequences of your coming military operations, that would be very sensitive to us and I would like to inform you that we shall interfere directly in the region in case a Kurdish State with Kirkuk established.î He stressed that Turkmans, living in Kirkuk, concern Turkey a lot. He added that he, himself, was a Turkman descendant.
The Assistant Secretary of USA Defence Minster was on a visit to Turkey to persuade Turks to give up their support for sources of terror and terrorism in Iraq and give up their objection to eradicate these sources of terror and terrorism through a military campaign to liberate Iraq from these sources of terror and terrorism and eradicating them.
Kirkuk city - South Kurdistan
The Turks have made many demands from the USA as a price for their cooperation with the USA against sources of terror and terrorism in Iraq. It seems that the Assistant Secretary of USA Defence Minister has not agreed on all their demands like allowing Turkey to take over Kirkuk. That is why Turkish Officials now playing a different game, knocking on the door of Kurds and calling: O.K. If we get Kirkuk you can have your Kurdish State. Otherwise they directly interfere if this new Kurdish State includes Kirkuk.
These Turkish Officials are really shortsighted. If Iraqi Kurds seeking separation and accepted the existing crumbs without Kirkuk, most probably Saddam Hussein would have been the first one in history who recognised an independent Kurdish State. It is Ironic that these Turkish Officials, the product of a 600-year-old empire intellect and culture, are so incapable to recognise requirements of the modern world and how incapable to comprehend that in 21st century you cannot do any thing you want because you have an extremely strong armed forces.
These armed forces, Turkish armed forces, built on the back of their population and caused Turkey to become a source of cheap labour for European Labour Market and depend on the IMF and USA hand outs for its survival. This is really a good final product of a 600-year-old Ottoman Empire. A product, Turkish Republic, which take children to court for demanding to study in their mothersí tongue or imprisoning an elected Kurdish legislator for wearing Kurdish costumes and depriving 20 million Kurds, under its control, from their basic rights.
Their character and frames of mind, which are very far from 21st Century, still reflect their original Ottoman root when they contacted Europe during European renaissance for the first time. During that time, Ottoman Europeanised ruling class was mainly influenced by Germans who were very proud for being Germans because of their potential to make Germany a strong Industrialised European Country.
However, this newly bred Turkish Social Class misunderstood why the Germans were proud of their being as Germans. They imitated Germans but as being proud of their being as Turks. Accordingly they corrupted the concept. The Germans were proud as Germans for an achievement, making Germany a strong industrialised country. But this newly bred Turkish Social Class became as proud Turks for no reason. But it gave them a sense of purpose in a sense that they felt superior over none Turks. In another word, they invented the concept of racial superiority. Off course, in their case, Turks were the superior race.
Oil fields of Babegurgur in Kirkuk
After their invention, they discovered their nightmare, Ottoman Empire was made up mainly from none Turks and Turks represented only a small fraction of the population of the Empire. This created a sense of insecurity and paranoia as they lost in an unknown territory just like their forefathers when they lost but saved by a grey wolf. So they started to look for another grey wolf to save them and they found one, which was the forced Turkification of none Turkish subjects of the Empire to Turkish.
But this time, their new Grey Wolf was not so faithful. It brought down their empire over their head. All none-Turkish Subjects of the Empire started fighting back the policy of forced Turkification and kicked out the Turkish Rulers from their lands to become independent. So their new Grey Wolf cost them their empire.
The irony is that they have not yet learnt a lesson. Because of their sense of insecurity and paranoia, they are still following their new Grey Wolf. That is way they have deprived 20 million Kurds under their control from their basic human rights in the hope that they, the Kurds, will convert to Turks. But their new Grey Wolf has let them down. The Kurds didnít convert to Turks, but converted to 20 million mountains hanging by a string over their heads.
This has created their worst nightmares. Because of their insecurity from being crushed by these 20 million mountains, they have invested all their resources into their armed forces as well as joined Nato. So this product of a 600 year old Empire supposed to have prospered as good as Germans or Japanese but instead it has ended up as a provider of cheap labour to Europe and if it is not because of the hand outs of IMF and USA it will crumble to the finish because of their paranoia and insecurity.
It is the duty of the free world to keep them at bay to prevent them to interfere in the affairs of Kurdistan and Iraq after the liberation of Iraq. They already represent a time bomb to breed terror and terrorism. If they put their nose into the affairs of Iraq and Iraqi Kurdistan after liberation, the whole region inflames creating breeding ground for terror and terrorism to threaten the peace and tranquillity of the free world.
The Free World has to recognise that the complete eradication of the conditions, which breed terror and terrorism, can come about only through a free and democratic social environment and the foundation of this free and democratic social environment has already been established in Iraqi Kurdistan. Not only that, the character of Kurdish Leadership is a right character fits with the requirements of a free and democratic social environment. They are secure and have trust in themselves.
This has proved through the Iraqi Kurdistan democratic experiment. Kurdish Leaders travel all over the world as the world belongs to them. Despite all obstacles and difficulties, they have recognised the cultural and political rights of all diversities in Kurdistan as an obligation not as a favour. All diversities in Iraqi liberated Kurdistan have their own publications, radios, TVs and schools in their mother tongues as well as enjoying their full democratic rights. This is a lot. When compared with a country like Turkey we see what Kurds have achieved in the field of civil society in ten years is a lot more than what the Turks have achieved in 600 years.
Iraqi Kurdistan Democratic Experiment is a starting point to create a civil society in the whole region as a sure guarantee against any condition which breed terror and terrorism. Accordingly it is the duty of the free world after the liberation of Iraq to ensure Iraqi Kurdistan region, as an Iraqi Federated State, includes all areas, especially Kirkuk, which were historically and are geographically parts of Kurdistan.
This is especially applies on Kirkuk. Kurds have proved that they can spearhead the establishment of a civil society in the region as a sure guarantee against terror and terrorism against the free world. This quest needs resources and these resources exist in Kirkuk oilfields. In addition to this, it is necessary for Kirkuk to be included within Iraqi Kurdistan Federated State as a fair share of natural resources between new Iraqi Federated States.
It is vitally important for the free world to keep Turkey at bay, not to take over Kirkuk. Turkish Ruling class are insecure and paranoiac exactly like Saddam Hussein. If they take over Kirkuk, they will inflame the region from Mediterranean to China border in a long-term turmoil threatening the security of free world. They use Turkman cause as an excuse, which is not valid because Turkmans have never had it so good within Iraqi Liberated Kurdistan since the establishment of the state of Iraq.
They claim they want to protect Turkmans from the Kurds but they never came by words or deeds to protect Turkmans from tyranny and atrocity of Saddam Hussein against Turkmans. Today, Turkmans enjoy their full democratic rights in Iraqi liberated Kurdistan. But where they, Turkmans, live under Iraqi Government, their properties confiscated, their rights violated and forcefully deported to south Iraq or Liberated Kurdistan. So whom Turkey bluffs? Certainly only itself.
August 6, 2006 3:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Turkey and the Kurdish nation
Though the Arabs and Persians have been no less oppressive and opposed to Kurdish national aspirations, they have maintained a much lower profile than the Turks on the Kurdish issue. Why does Turkey harbors such a strong hate and opposition to the Kurdish nation, which helped their ancestors build the Ottoman empire? Kemal Ataturk was able to skillfully manipulate the Kurdish population of Northern Kurdistan by promising them partnership in the new state of Turkey. Instead of treating the Kurds as equal partners, the Kemalists later denied their very existence. They embarked on the assimilation of the Kurds with a view to wiping out the Kurdish nation.
The Turks thought that by denying the Kurds the right to speak their mother tongue and exercise their cultural heritage, they will eventually become Turks within a few decades. After almost eight decades of Turkeyís oppressive policy, the Kurdish nation is very well and kicking. They called the Kurds Mountain Turks who had forgotten their mother tongue and cultural heritage. The Kurds were deprived not only of their civil rights, but also of equal economic opportunities with the rest of population. As a result, the Kurdish region, which is endowed with many natural resources, including oil and water, has remained underdeveloped with high rates of unemployment, low per capita income, high child mortality, and a very low literacy rate.
Turkeyís unwise policy has certainly negatively impacted not only the Kurdish economy, but also the overall economy of Turkey. Just imagine how much contribution some 15 million educated and skilled Kurds could have made to the Turkish economy during the past decades. Its Kurdish policy has left the Turkish economy in shambles, prone to collapse without continued American/ IMF help. Despite the billions of dollars of IMF (International Monetary Fund) money pumped into Turkeyís economy, inflation is sky-rocketing and unemployment is rampant in the country. Instead of investing in economic development and social justice, Turkey spent some eight billion dollars a year fighting the Kurdish rebels during 1984-1999.
Due to the rigid and irrational government policy and its discriminatory practices against the Kurds, the Kurdish region has suffered much more than the rest of the country. In the absence of a better outlet for expressing their political and social grievances, the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) emerged in 1984 and rose up against the central government, which is controlled by ideologically oriented armed forces who claim to be the guardians of Kemal Ataturk`s legacy. If their claim that that they are protecting a pluralistic democratic system is correct, why then has the European Union made the revamping of the Turkish constitution a prerequisite for joining their club?.
Assisted by the western states, Turkey was able to capture, try, and imprison Abdullah Ocelan, the leader of the Kurdish uprising in Northern Kurdistan-Turkey. Under pressure from the European community, the PKK changed its strategy from armed struggle to political activism. It renounced acts of violence, called for an unconditional cease-fire, and demobilized its activities inside Turkey. In order to pacify the Kurdish movement in Turkey, the European Community called on Turkey to discontinue the death penalty, allow broadcasting in Kurdish, and legalize education in Kurdish. The European Union has made these changes, among others, as a prerequisite for opening a membership dialogue. Turkey has recently made some cosmetic changes in its constitution to reflect these requests. However, reading between the lines reveals that bureaucratic obstacles for obtaining government permits are expected to render exercising these so-called new rig