So you want the Iraqi killing Iraqi to continue?
This hatred goes back for hundreds if not thousands of years, and now you just want everyone to be at peace and accept a eutopian state......LOL.

The only solutuon the USA has is to break Iraq up into 3 different states, and those 3 states will have borders in which the Suni, shi'ite, and Kurds, will have a vested interest in protecting.
Since they will have this vested interest this will make it as so the car bombing will become less the attacks on iraqi vs iraqi will have to come to an end. As they protect thier new found border, the USA will uphold the law and have the no fly zones, attack insurgents in a surgicle manner, and remove themselves from the middle of what was once a civil war. The USA can sit at the edges in Kuate, Turkey, Jordon, and keep the peace.

Iran as do many european nations want to see Iraq melt down to nothing so as to take advantage of a bad situration. I did not agree with Bush and never have, probably never will, but now that we are there the USA needs to protect the interest (oil) and maintain peace.

Since the Iraqi people cannot keep from killing each other, then the only solution is to make 3 seperate states.

Helena Luczywo represents Jewish influence in Eastern Europe. Her newspaper "Gazeta Wyborcza" is known in Poland for its jewish views on world matter. You may wonder where on Earth a twin brothers can be president and premier of a country. The former Pop was also a Polish. Although they can't say what they know about the fundamental mistake of Jewish belief in the Old testament I can do so. What ever god that dictate the killing of a child by his father for his satisfaction, that god is bad.

Whoever believe in that bad god will by logic commits bad deeds. That's why I have to return here more than twice to clean this mess.

Việt nam was devided into 3 part by its colonial power started from 1858 war of conlonization. It's now a pseudo federal state :-) ?

The politics of division is obsolete now. You can't do divide and conquer any more. The trend in this world is to unite and destroy border.

Will Turkey ever come to its senses?

Seldom has there been an issue on which so much ink has been spent, especially by Kurds, as that of Turkey's outrageous behavior vis-à-vis the Kurdish people in South (Iraqi-occupied) Kurdistan leading up to, during, and now after Operation Iraqi Freedom. (I say "Iraqi-occupied" Kurdistan because I believe that as long as Kurdistan remains part of Iraq in any shape or form, it will remain occupied; only when it becomes an independent state completely separated from Iraq will it not be so.)

Yet, one wonders if all of that has made a dent in Turkey's totally uncalled-for vicious attitude towards the Kurdish people. Most of what has been written has been published, of course, online on the Kurdish web sites, for Kurds are, for the most part, barred from publishing their views in the newspapers. I have sent articles to the leading newspapers in this country but not a single one has been published even though I express the mainstream Kurdish view, not a radical one. Yet, articles full of distortions and misinformation find their way into these same papers. Apparently, it is not only the fossils in the State and Defense Departments who side with their Turkish allies, but the news media as well.

Given Turkey's deep-rooted and pathological hatred for the Kurds and Kurdistan, one wonders if anything Kurds will say, write, or do --- short of disappearing from the face of the earth --- will ever give the Turks a pause in their non-stop war against all things Kurdish everywhere. The problem with Turkey is that almost a century after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey is still in denial of that event, for it still believes that it owns South Kurdistan and its people. Although Turkey has relinquished claims on most of what used to be Ottoman colonies, due to Arab power and Western support of Arabs' right to their land, it just can't bring itself to recognize that South Kurdistan is no longer an Ottoman colony.

Turkey has been threatening South Kurdistan with invasion since the Kurds drove the Iraqi army out of part of their homeland in the summer and fall of 1991 and liberated it from Saddam's hated rule. This threat of invasion, which is very real even today, has been based on the claim that the Kurds would declare independence, which is considered by Turkey as an unforgivable crime. First of all, declaring independence is not, unfortunately, part of the Kurdish leadership's agenda. Secondly, assuming it were, that is for the Kurds to decide and not for Turkey or Iraq or any of the other occupying states. It is, indeed, not only the height of arrogance and hypocrisy but of criminality for the Turks or the Arabs or the Persians to give themselves the right to decide whether the Kurds, a nation of 35-40 million people, can be independent in their own homeland or not. No one must have the right to decide the issue of Kurdish independence but the Kurds themselves.

The fact that the Kurdish nation has been denied its freedom and independence until now by the occupying states is a testament to the utter inhumanity and criminality of these states. And the fact that the international community has not only let these states get away with their crime but even encouraged it by always insisting on the so-called "territorial integrity" of the occupying states points to the moral bankruptcy of this so-called "community." A true community protects its members, all its members, instead of devouring them. The international community does have a hand in the persecution and genocide of the Kurdish people because, instead of calling for freedom for the Kurds, it has always called for the continuation of the status quo, knowing very well that the occupation of Kurdistan means terrorizing the Kurdish people and depriving the Kurdish individual of everything that would make him feel like a human being. If this is not support for terrorism against the Kurdish people, then what is it? What kind of UN is it when Kofi Anan doesn't utter a word against the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Kurds under Saddam's Arabization of Kurdistan and now when he finally opens his mouth he is against the return of the ethnically cleansed Kurds to their own homes from which they were forcibly driven out.

In the period leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Turks were very worried that the Kurds might make some gains as a result of the war of liberation. So, they tried every trick in the book and used every scare tactic and even the pretext of "humanitarian" concerns for possible refugees (How about that for a joke?) to get their troops in South Kurdistan to make sure that the Kurds did not step out of line. Luckily for the Kurds, none of those tricks worked and the Turks were kept out, for the most part, and away from creating trouble for the Kurds and undermining their alliance with the US.

Still, the masters of trickery haven't given up on muddying the waters for the Kurds. According to news reports of the last few days in Time magazine and The New York Times, two dozen heavily armed Turkish Special Forces were caught by American troops at a checkpoint outside Kirkuk trying to smuggle all kinds of arms and explosives to some Turkoman elements in the city in order to create chaos in the city and give Turkey the excuse it has been looking for all along to meddle in Kurdish affairs. This criminal act by The Turkish Special Forces is not only an act against the Kurds but also against the Americans, who are charged with maintaining security in the area. Still, instead of arresting these would-be saboteurs and exposing the Turkish government's criminal act, the American troops merely escorted the Turkish commandoes back across the border --- perhaps to come back again without getting caught!

And to add insult to injury, when the Turkish deputy prime minister and foreign minister, Abdullah Gul, was asked what those Turkish commandoes were doing and why they were taking all those weapons and explosives with them, he replied, with a straight face, that they were protecting the humanitarian convoy on its way to Kirkuk! Mr. Gul must really take people for fools if he thinks they will believe his claim. And assuming there was a humanitarian convoy, should Turkey have sent all those weapons of death with it? This is why the US-led coalition must never give Turkey any peace-keeping role whatsoever in Kurdistan or Iraq because it will abuse that trust and use its role as a peace-keeper to create discord, wage war, and sew death instead of promoting peace.

To the Turkish government and military, if there isn't a Saddam-style rule in what they call "Northern Iraq" to terrorize the Kurds and demolish their homes, it means there is a political and security vacuum that needs to be filled --- perhaps by them! Thus, as far as the Turks are concerned, there has been a "vacuum" in the Kurdish-administered part of South Kurdistan since Saddam's forces were thrown out of there in 1991 and there will be a "vacuum" until, they hope, another anti-Kurd regime in Baghdad reoccupies the liberated part of Kurdistan. Turkey abhors this "vacuum" and can't rest until it is filled. What the Turks can't stand and refuse to accept is that since 1991 and for the first time in recent Kurdish history and in a section of Kurdistan, the Kurdish people have not been terrorized by their rulers because those rulers are from them and not occupiers. What the Turks can't swallow is that the Kurds have been able, thanks to the no-fly zone enforced by the US and Britain, to build a democratic, open, tolerant and free society in Kurdistan that, by all measures, is unique in the whole region of the Middle East. But all of that achievement is immaterial as far as the Turks are concerned, for the poor little "vacuum" is still there and is expanding and may devour all the enemies of the Kurds. In fact, it is those Kurdish achievements that the Turks hate the most. When Abdullah Gul was asked a few days ago how long Turkish troops would stay in "Northern Iraq," he replied that their presence will continue "Because there is still a security vacuum!"

The depth of Turkish hatred for the word "Kurdistan" and the Kurdish people everywhere defies explanation. Other countries and peoples may hate each other and even go to war with each other at a certain time in their history, but over time they get over their hatred and work out their problems. However, the Turkish brand of hatred is unique in that it is limitless, constant, aggressive, pervasive, relentless, absolute, and never-ending. It is a hatred that borders on madness. It is as if Turkey has one mission in life, which is to do everything in its power to deny the Kurds the right to life and liberty at any cost. To cite examples of this hatred will require enough books to fill a room. Nevertheless, I will mention just one incident, which happened very recently. It was reported in the news that a Turkish MP had asked a visiting US Congressman to have the sign "Welcome to Kurdistan" removed and replaced with "Welcome to Iraq." This MP is not alone in his hatred of Kurdistan; he is typical of a whole nation that has been fed anti-Kurdish propaganda for a century and has come to believe it without ever questioning it.

Whether Turkey will finally come to its senses or not regarding its relations with the Kurdish people is up to her. One thing is certain, though: There will be an independent Kurdish state whether Turkey likes it or not. It is not if there will be such a state but when. Nothing can stop the Kurds from realizing their long overdue legitimate right to statehood. Turkey can choose to have a friendly state on its southern border that can perhaps even help her economically because of its vast economic resources, or it can choose to have an unfriendly one. The Kurds certainly prefer the first choice because it is in the interest of both nations. Now it is up to Turkey to make up her mind and make her choice.

Revealing the facts about the Kurdish Genocide: All part of the US occupation-package

The former Iraqi government massacred at least 182,000 Kurds in the late 1980s.

"(Remember) when your Lord revealed to the angels, "Verily I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks and smite over all their fingers and toes. This is because they defied and disobeyed Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad). And whoever defies and disobeys Allah and His Messenger, them verily, Allah is Severe in punishment. This is (the torment), so taste it and surely, for the disbelievers is the torment of the Fire."
(Surat Al-Anfal - Spoils of War- 8:12-14)

Anfal - Spoils of War

Anfal was one of the methods under which the genocide against the Kurds and their identity was conducted. In seeking to erase the Kurdish identity by an Arab regime, Anfal became the identity of the Kurds itself.

How many other methods were conducted and what were the magnitudes of these atrocities? No one knows for certain. What is known, however, is that the pieces of the genocide-jigsaw are scattered all over Iraq, throughout the region and across the world.

The Iraqi regime conducted the campaign and Iraq buried the bodies. Young girls were sold as slaves to happy buyers from the Arab Gulf states. The more Kurds Saddam killed, the more loans Arab states, including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, gave to Iraq. In the eyes of Arabs, Saddam was the Guard of the "Eastern Gate to the Arab World".

The necessary technology and expertise were imported from the international community, in particular the West. They viewed the genocide of the Kurds as the internal affair of Iraq, not to be interfered with according to the terms of the United Nations. Western politicians bought time by lying through their teeth to probing journalists.

The international community accepted Saddam's bleeding of the Kurds as long as cheap Iraqi oil bled for them. The UN, characteristically, showed no interest in the genocide of the Kurds. The guilt is collective, the evidence resounding. The entire international community had dipped its hands into the weeping pools of Kurdish blood.

And even now, the complicity continues. Despite having ousted Saddam's regime, the international community shows no interest in this genocide. Think of how many hours the United Nations deliberated over Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. One would expect the UN to question how these weapons were deployed. But the UN follows another agenda, one that does not embarrass the 22 Arab states most of which were loyal to Saddam's rule and the territorial integrity of Iraq. And then there is the UN's sensitivity to Turkey, who wants to keep 'Kurds' and 'Kurdistan' out of the international community's vocabulary.

How many more deaths would it take for the Kurdish issue to capture the UN's attention?

The US Covers the Smoking Gun

On May the 11th, 2003, another mass grave was found. Inside were the remains of more than 1,000 people, men, women, children and babies. Their clothes revealed that they were Kurds. But this knowledge is far from sufficient. Who were these people? Which part of Kurdistan did they come from? How long had they been waiting to be uncovered? How were they killed? How much did they suffer? Who stood by as the bodies were buried?

Unfortunately, vital answers to these questions remain forever lost. There are no forensic anthropologists to carefully excavate these graves. Instead, unqualified people with good hearts, dig out the remains as families wait by the graves. They hold pictures of their family members hoping that maybe an identity card, a pen, a scrap of fabric from the local tailor will deliver the certainty of loss. Few will be so lucky. For the vast majority, their dashed hopes will be reburied with the remains.

Having almost convinced the world of the moral imperative to end Saddam's rule, the US has lost its interest in moral causes - especially the Kurdish genocide.

One cannot help anticipating that the US-led collation does not care for the Kurds. They are in Iraq to pursue their own agenda. They don't have the time or the stomach to pay tribute to the discovery of mass graves of Kurdish victims of Saddam. Instead, they rush to mourn and lament the death of a single member of their own tribe - that of privileged Westerners.

I believe that western victims deserve our respect and dignity, for any loss of human life is a tragedy. But one would expect the US occupying forces, at least as part of their mandate and obligations, to have some interest in the discovery of mass graves. Sadly the occupying forces in Iraq have closed their eyes and ears to these mass graves and locals have neither the technology nor the expertise to establish the identity of their loved ones.

Imagine this scenario. A father looks at a mass grave of his village. He is certain that the bodies of his wife and children are lying amongst them and yet he has no idea which one of the dead are his beloved ones. What human or holy laws can tolerate that after nearly 15 years of suffering the father can not yet put his mind to rest?

We are witnessing an important moment in human history. An intolerable regime that raged for 35 years has been removed, leaving Iraq like a complex jigsaw whose pieces are scattered all over Iraq. We need to find them and put them together.

Understanding the mentality of individuals in the former Iraqi regime, the mechanism by which the regime operated, the states that assisted Iraq in conducting the atrocities, is vital to ensure that history does not repeat itself.

How can democracy be built in Iraq without knowing what Iraq and the Iraqi people, including the Kurds, endured under the last regime? How can one reassure the people of Iraq that what they went through will not be repeated?

Can the US-led coalition really abandon its operations without finding all the facts about the atrocities that the former Iraqi regime conducted?

What should be done?

• An extensive search must be conducted for mass graves all over Iraq.

• The surviving victims need to be consulted by specialists in order to piece together what really happened to the victims.

• Relatives when possible and immediate families of Anfal victims should undergo DNA tests in efforts to match the DNA tests from the bones discovered in the mass graves.

• A database should be developed to record the disappeared victims and their surviving relatives. A considerable amount of work has been done to date and must be supported.

The US must take the leading role regarding this issue. They chose to become the occupying force in Iraq and there are responsibilities to bear.

The US has to stop executing Turkish policy towards Kurds

Recent developments indicate that the United States seems to be apathetic toward Kurdish inspiration for freedom. Kurds see the U.S. maintaining Arabization of Kurdistan imposed on them by Saddam's regime. Moreover, the U.S. leans more toward Turkey with knowledge of Turkey's hostility and barbarism toward Kurds. Once more, it seems like that Kurds will be the casualty of a U.S.-Turkey alliance as they have been for the past half a century. If the U.S. is not to reevaluate its foreign policy toward Turkey, it could face a disgraceful defeat in Iraq and alienate its only true ally, the Kurds.

Since the end of the first Gulf war in 1991, U.S. forces have been protecting Kurds from Saddam under the "no fly zone". Thus, Kurds were pleased with this protection, however their reception toward this protection was cautious. The reason was while Kurds were protected from Saddam, during that same period, the Turkish army invaded Kurdistan more than once and they didn't pullout completely. As I write this, Turks are still occupying areas of Kurdistan near its 'border', not mentioning its almost century long occupation of northern Kurdistan.

We the Kurds know that when it comes to our conflict with Turkey, the U.S. always sides with Turkey, just as if the U.S. state department acts on behalf of Turkey. During the Iraq war, Turkey reneged on its promise to help the U.S., yet the trips back and forth between Washington, Istanbul and Ankara is nonstop by the members of congress, senate and US government officials. With everything that happened between the U.S. and Turkey, over Turks giving the cold shoulders to the Coalition war against Iraq, still the U.S. State department is calling Turkey a good friend and still U.S. foreign aid is pouring into Turkey.

Kurds have been frustrated for a long time with the U.S.'s military, monetary and political aid to Turkey, for it was the U.S. aid that empowered Turks to crack down every Kurdish attempt toward their freedom. At the time that the U.S. was protecting Kurds from Saddam under the "no fly zone" the C.I. A., the F.B.I. and their dear friends at the Israeli Intelligence Agency were hunting Kurdish freedom fighters in Turkey and abroad. They labeled the PKK as a "terrorist" organisation, as they looked the other way concerning atrocities and acts of terror committed by Turkish Kemalist State against Kurds for nearly half a century.

Furthermore the U. S., the world champion of freedom, ignored the plight of fifteen million Kurds in Turkey and kept pumping near half a trillion dollars of loans to Turkey during the past two decades through International Monetary Fund (IMF). All the while knowing Turkey would never be able to pay it back, hence, free money rather than a loan. During that same period the U.S. has ignored all the reports of horrendous human rights documented by well respected human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. The U.S. at least could have attached some human rights strings to their generous aid to Turkey, but they didn't do so, for the U.S., just like Turkey, has not recognized the Kurdish national rights.

It is a contradiction, that while the U. S. is committed to democracy in Iraq, and that includes the Kurds, it does not seem to be too worried about Turkey? Do Kurds in Turkey deserve the same right as their counterparts in Iraq? If yes, why is the U.S. so deaf and mute towards their plight for freedom and their oppression by Turkey? If the U.S. really means what it preaches about freedom and liberty, then why don't they influence Turks at least to give Kurds in Turkey their linguistic and cultural rights? These are the contradictions that the U.S. created in its policy and this is a clear example of the U.S. double standard when it comes to human rights, and balance between their slogan for freedom, human rights and their practices.

Recently, the Turkish government got caught exporting weapons to its fifth column in south Kurdistan, the Turkmen Front. Those same weapons were used to cause disturbances in Kirkuk and to help the creation of Turkmen terrorists to aggravate the current chaos in Iraq. Yet, the U.S. was indifferent. On the other hand, the U.S. administration and state department had harsh words for Iran, when it discovered that the Iranians were harboring terrorists. Here we go again, the double standard; one for Iran and another for Turkey, and no matter what Turkey does, it seems to be all right with the U.S.

The villages around the city of Kirkuk, a Kurdish populated area for centuries, had been by force, populated with a pro-Saddam population. Once Saddam was gone, the residents of these villages fled. The Kurds came back to reclaim their properties, but the U.S. troops forced them out and brought back the pro-Saddam Arabs just to keep Saddam's Arabization status quo. In addition, Turkmens in Kirkuk attacked the Kurds, yet U.S. troops came and disarmed the Kurds and left the armed Turkmen's alone. Why this double standard? Is it to keep the friends in Ankara happy while offering the Kurds lip service.

The U.S. as a world's superpower needs not be intimidated by the Turks and must realize that if it wasn't for Kurds, or if Kurds were to side with Saddam, they could have made the situation in Iraq far more difficult, and at some point devastating to the U.S. So far, Kurds have been silent toward the U.S. mixed signals, but if the U.S. is to continue executing Turkish policy rather than their own in Iraq, regrettably the U.S. can loose Kurds and that without any doubt will pronounce the U.S.'s defeat in Iraq and a democratic Iraq will become an impossiblity.

In the final analysis, the establishment of Iraqi government that is pro-American will fail on the face of American past and present foreign policy practices. The U.S. occupation made a big mess in Iraq, and the mess will become bigger for Iraqi people as well the U.S. Should the U.S. prestige and reputation in the Middle East burn in the flames of Mesopotamian conflicts, the U. S. has its own double standard, inconsistent and unfair foreign policy practices to blame.

Why are we part of Iraq anyway?

I wrote an article over a year ago entitled "Is iraq really indivisible?" in which I argued that "The division of Iraq into two independent states, Kurdistan and Iraq, would be the best thing that could ever happen to that country." With each passing day, I become more and more convinced that that position was right then and even more so today.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The state of Iraq was the brainchild of some demented British colonial officers who had no regard or loyalty for anything but the British Empire
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The state of Iraq was the brainchild of some demented British colonial officers who had no regard or loyalty for anything but the British Empire on which, it was said at the time, "the sun never sets." They certainly had no regard at all for the Kurdish people, their rights as a nation, their concerns or interests; consequently, they created for them a hell on earth that they haven't been able to get out of since their misbegotten creation was born eighty years ago.

Like millions of Kurds, I believe that one of the biggest crimes that the victorious Allies committed after WW1 was to deny our people statehood. But that was then and now is now. To dwell on all the horrible wrongs and misdeeds committed against us in the past can be beneficial only if it can give impetus to our cause today, but to feel sorry for ourselves and wallow in our victimization will do us no good. We must not allow a terrible past dictate our future.

Our people must not suffer in perpetuity because of what some heartless colonialists did to us almost a century ago. In an age when most of the previously oppressed people of the world have won their freedom, our people must not be content with anything less than their complete liberation from occupation and oppression.

Thus, instead of being busy writing a new Iraqi constitution and thereby legitimizing eighty more years of Anfals and Halabjas by the same state that has brought us nothing but death and destruction, our leaders should be writing a constitution for a free Kurdisan. Instead of renewing our undying loyalty to the unity of a state which will not hesitate, the minute it gets back on its feet, to commit new genocides against our people, like all other previous Iraqi regimes, our leaders should be thinking of the quickest way to end that unity and sever forever that master-slave relationship.

We must reject the defeatist notion advocated by some amongst us that somehow our fate has been sealed forever by geography and history and we are destined to remain part of the state that has brought us nothing but suffering and genocide during its entire existence and will certainly cause us more of the same in the future if we remain part of it. The tragedies of Halabja and the Anfal were not caused by geography but by man. The man-made, artificial borders which divide Kurdistan were not drawn up by destiny but by man, hence they can also be changed and corrected by man. If there ever were a time to undo the injustice done to us and tear down the walls of the dark prison called Iraq, now is that time.

When all is said and done, the truly important issue before our people today is whether we who have been victims of one of the biggest injustices done to any people in history will uphold and even glorify that injustice or reject it categorically. Hasn't the corner stone of Kurdish patriotism always been fighting this injustice from the very day it was imposed on us? What exactly happened to that spirit? Are we all now Iraqis first and Kurds second?

And what happened to the memory of thousands of Kurdish martyrs who gave their life so their people would be free? Aren't we forgetting what our people's struggle has always been about when we sing the praises of Iraqism instead of Kurdish independence even as new mass graves of innocent Kurds are being discovered every day? Weren't these innocent Kurds and thousands of others murdered by the same state that our leaders want us to rejoin and rebuild? Aren't we sowing the seeds of more Halabjas and Anfals by voluntarily walking back into the prison?

The many thousands of our Kurdish brethren who died for freedom --- be it in combat against the occupiers of our homeland when our Peshmargas' slogan used to be "Kurdistan or Death," or in Iraqi torture chambers, or by execution squads, or by poison gas in Halabja and the other not-so-well-known towns and villages, or by being buried alive in the Southern Iraqi deserts in the murderous Anfal campaign, or by bombardment as in Qaladiza and countless other communities, or by freezing to death like the many hundreds but thousands of innocent little children in the mass exodus of 1991, or in the many other ruthless ways carried out by the regime in Baghdad --- would be shocked if they could only hear for just once on the two Kurdish satellite television channels, KurdSat and Kurdistan TV, what has become their daily mantra since the liberation of Iraq:

O, Iraq, my beloved country!
O, Iraq, my trustworthy country!
I worship every inch of your soil!
We are all your protectors O, Iraq!

Fearing an Arab, Turkish, and Iranian backlash, the dominant, official Kurdish point of view seems compelled to favor federalism over independence; in fact, there is no mention of independence at all even as a goal. Regardless of its specious justifications, this point of view totally disregards the bitter experience of the Kurdish people with successive repressive Iraqi regimes. This vision can only be described as the triumph of hope over experience and of timidity over boldness. It clearly reflects the minimalist approach does not do any justice to the enormous sacrifices that our people have made for the sake of freedom. It runs contrary to the failed experiment with this kind of unworkable relationship in other countries, such as the defunct Yugoslavia and Soviet Union. I say "unworkable" because it is an inherently unequal and disastrous relationship between a dominant ethnic group or culture and a weaker one, which has to count on the good will of Big Brother --- the last possible source of such a thing in the world.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leaders support and promote every other oppressed people's demand for independence but their own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is truly a mystery why our leaders support and promote every other oppressed people's demand for independence but their own. The Kurdish people deserve a good explanation for this inexplicable stance, other than the tired, old, and utterly unconvincing argument of "realism" and "the art of the possible." If it is realistic for the Palestinians to get their independent state ---and they certainly should --- it should be realistic for the Kurds, too. I remember when we used to hear many years ago from those who were quite skilled at brainwashing us that it wasn't yet the right time to talk about things like Kurdish self-determination and that the time for that would come only after our Arab brethren in their occupied land were liberated and got their independence! While we might be forgiven for our incredible political naivete in those days, as we not only listened to that nonsense but were also taken by it, we have absolutely no excuse for falling for it now when practically most underdog nations have achieved their freedom and the United Nation's membership has swollen to 191.

There is a great irony in the fact that the idea of a gradual Kurdish independence through a natural disintegration of Iraq as a country should come not from our own leaders but from a non-Kurd. I am referring here to a news report in kurdishMedia.com on June 21 in which Mr. Peter Galbraith, the former US ambassador to Croatia, was quoted as saying that the US must not worry if a peaceful and voluntary division of the federal system happens in Iraq similar to the Czechoslovakian style. (It should be mentioned here that Mr. Galbraith is no stranger to our cause, as he has been one of the most loyal and steadfast supporters of our people's fight for freedom, for which we are eternally grateful.) Obviously, Kurds are puzzled as to why the U.S. would "worry" if the Kurds get what 191 other nations already have. (Of these, 131 are less numerous than the Kurds.) If freedom is such a bad thing, why isn't it being denied to all those nations as well? The U.S. and other true democracies need not only not "worry" if Kurdisan becomes an independent sate but should embrace the event enthusiastically because such a state would be a reaffirmation of human dignity and a bastion of freedom and democracy in the Middle East.

Mr. Galbraith was also on target when he said in his testimony before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 12 that, "...Virtually no Kurd would choose to be Iraqi if given a free choice." Again, Mr. Galbraith is far more accurate in gauging the pulse of the Kurdish people than those among us who claim that "We are Iraqis first and Kurds second." Now the real question to ask of the decision-makers in the US and Europe and all those who are involved in the Kurdish issue, including our own leaders, is "Why aren't the Kurds given that 'free choice'? And doesn't the mere fact that they are not being given that choice mean that they are being held captive and ruled by a foreign power against their will?"

Finally, we simply wonder how any Kurd can uphold Iraqi unity and glorify the big lie of "Arab-Kurdish brotherhood" when we all know that the relationship has been anything but brotherly ---- unless, of course, killing thousands of people with poison gas, burying hundreds of thousands alive and dynamiting their homes, and terrorizing an entire people for decades can be considered acts of brotherly love.

Iran: inside turmoil and outside threat

As Middle Eastern regimes rule over their own people through suppression and deprivation, their unpopularity increases and become vulnerable to threat from outside powers. The Iraqi case was a clear example; the speedy collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime was a result of the unpopularity of his regime and decades of his tyranny.

The Islamic Republic of Iran seems to be facing a similar situation. With increasing threat from the United States the Iranian regime feels more vulnerable than ever, but instead of having learned a lesson from the Iraqi case it has increased its suppression of the Iranian population, especially students who have participated in protests against the regime.

Now the Iranian regime is experiencing turmoil inside and increasingly being threatened by the United States as a part of the "axis of evil".

Why does the United States want to change the Islamic regime of Iran?

Before the Islamic revolution, Iran was considered the most stable country in the region and one of the main US supporters. It was not only a bulwark against the Soviet Union but a protector of Western interests in the region.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran - a fundamental challenge to the US supremacy and influence in the Middle East.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Soon after the overthrow of the Shah and the assumption of power by the Islamic Republic of Iran, there was a fundamental challenge to the US supremacy and influence in the Middle East. Following the Iranian Revolution the oil price skyrocketed and the United States and Israel became the main targets of the new Iranian regime. On 4 November 1979, a group of Iranian students stormed the American embassy in Tehran and took 53 American diplomats hostage. Therefore, anti-American sentiments were promoted. On September 24, 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini told Muslims making the pilgrimage to Mecca:

My Muslim brothers and sisters! You are aware that the superpowers of East and West are plundering all our material and other resources, and have placed us in a situation of political, economic, cultural and military dependence. Come to your senses; rediscover your Islamic identity! Endure oppression no longer, and vigilantly expose the criminal plans of the international bandits, headed by America.[1]

Also, the new Islamic regime in Iran tended to spread its revolution to other Islamic countries. Dozens of Islamic fundamentalist groups were created or revived in Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turkey. The conservative and pro-American governments in the region were alarmed and threatened.

At that time the United States and its allies faced opposition from Islamic resurgents and the Soviet Union. The anti-American sentiments were reinforced on two fronts: by the Soviet Union and the Islamic regime in Iran.

However, there have been significant changes since then. The Soviet Union that was a deterrent against the US expansion does not exist anymore. There is a "new world order" and that is "the American way". As George Bush Senior put it, "what we say goes".

Under the "new world order" or rather post "new world order" the United States, as a part of its strategic plan for the Middle East, is in the process of changing the structure of the Middle East region. US intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq are two cases in point. It seems that Iran will be the next target. The days in which Iran could challenge (at least by words) the United States have gone.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservatives in Pentagon seem very determined to change the political map of the Middle East.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This time the new conservatives in Pentagon seem very determined to change the political map of the Middle East. The new conservatives in the US administration have come to dominate American foreign policy. They promote a new world order in which America will play a leading role. With coming into power of George Bush Junior it seems that what the "new conservatives say goes".

It is essential to briefly outline what are the aims and objectives of the new conservatives (as was outlined in their draft policy in 1991) to shed some lights on the actions of the United States in the Middle East. The new conservatives have three main objectives:

a) To prevent the re-emergence of a new rival

The aim is to prevent any hostile power sufficient to generate global power dominating a region. The United State aims to dissuade them from aspiring to become such a power.

b To safeguard US interests and promote American values

The new conservatives argue that the US should promote respect for international laws, limit international violence and encourage the spread of democratic forms of government and open economic systems.

For the new conservatists issues that could threaten American national interests are access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, threat to US citizens from terrorism or regional or local conflicts, and threats to US society from narcotics trafficking.

c) To take unilateral action

The US approach is to promote collective action and it expects future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies formed to deal with a particular crisis. The new conservatives believe that as the new world order is ultimately backed by the United States, it should take a unilateral action when collective action cannot be orchestrated.

As such, the United States wants to get rid of the Islamic regime of Iran as an anti-US government and as a part of the "axis of evil" to implement the objectives in the Pentagon. This will be done to prevent Iran's emergence as a regional power given that Iraq, a main rival of Iran, is weakened and to safeguard US interests and promote American values, which have been opposed by the Islamic regime of Iran so far.

In order to do that the United States might take unilateral action, if it cannot form a coalition against Iran. This action may come in different ways but what is more essential for the US would be regime change in Iran. George W. Bush declared his support for students who want reforms, freedom and the end of the clergy's rule in Iran.

The United States has already been documenting evidence against Iran. Iran has been accused of harbouring the Al-Qaedeh terrorists. Already, the presence of atomic reactors in Iran has deeply concerned the United States. The USA believes that Iran's nuclear program makes sense only if it intended to develop nuclear weapons as Iran has sufficient oil resources not to need atomic energy. Should Iran succeed in building nuclear weapons both US's interests in the region and Israel will be under threat. Surely, the US does not want to face such a dilemma as in North Korea. Therefore, the US will try to change the regime in Iran before it is able to build nuclear weapons.

Despite being threatened by the United States, the Islamic Republic of Iran has continued to suppress the Iranian population to hold its grip over power. Instead of learning a lesson from the Iraqi situation, democratising Iran and allowing reforms it has been more vigorously suppressing any opposition in Iran. Recently, there have been reports of Kurdish opposition members being executed by the regime and now students being arrested and suppressed for their protests.

The suppression of the Iranian population would precipitate regime change in Iran. In the event that the United States attacks Iran or tries to change the regime in any other way, instead of opposing the US, many Iranians if not actively aligning themselves with the US, will support US action. This is a very unfortunate situation for a regime which has alienated itself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran needs to abandon the suppression of the Kurds and grant the Kurds their cultural and political rights.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a lesson to be learnt by the Islamic Republic of Iran in relation to the Kurdish issue. Iran needs to abandon the suppression of the Kurds and grant the Kurds their cultural and political rights. The Iraqi case is again clear evidence that, in any eventual US attack on Iran, Iranian Kurdistan would be the first place to be freed.

Notes:[1] Henry Munsor, JR. Islam and Revolution in The Middle East, Yale University Press, New Heaven, 1988, p.3.

The Three-State Solution

President Bush's new strategy of transferring power quickly to Iraqis, and his critics' alternatives, share a fundamental flaw: all commit the United States to a unified Iraq, artificially and fatefully made whole from three distinct ethnic and sectarian communities. That has been possible in the past only by the application of overwhelming and brutal force.

President Bush wants to hold Iraq together by conducting democratic elections countrywide. But by his daily reassurances to the contrary, he only fans devastating rumors of an American pullout. Meanwhile, influential senators have called for more and better American troops to defeat the insurgency. Yet neither the White House nor Congress is likely to approve sending more troops.

And then there is the plea, mostly from outside the United States government, to internationalize the occupation of Iraq. The moment for multilateralism, however, may already have passed. Even the United Nations shudders at such a nightmarish responsibility.

The only viable strategy, then, may be to correct the historical defect and move in stages toward a three-state solution: Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the center and Shiites in the south.

Almost immediately, this would allow America to put most of its money and troops where they would do the most good quickly -- with the Kurds and Shiites. The United States could extricate most of its forces from the so-called Sunni Triangle, north and west of Baghdad, largely freeing American forces from fighting a costly war they might not win. American officials could then wait for the troublesome and domineering Sunnis, without oil or oil revenues, to moderate their ambitions or suffer the consequences.

This three-state solution has been unthinkable in Washington for decades. After the Iranian revolution in 1979, a united Iraq was thought necessary to counter an anti-American Iran. Since the gulf war in 1991, a whole Iraq was deemed essential to preventing neighbors like Turkey, Syria and Iran from picking at the pieces and igniting wider wars.

But times have changed. The Kurds have largely been autonomous for years, and Ankara has lived with that. So long as the Kurds don't move precipitously toward statehood or incite insurgencies in Turkey or Iran, these neighbors will accept their autonomy. It is true that a Shiite self-governing region could become a theocratic state or fall into an Iranian embrace. But for now, neither possibility seems likely.
There is a hopeful precedent for a three-state strategy: Yugoslavia after World War II. In 1946, Marshal Tito pulled together highly disparate ethnic groups into a united Yugoslavia. A Croat himself, he ruled the country from Belgrade among the majority and historically dominant Serbs. Through clever politics and personality, Tito kept the peace peacefully.

When Tito died in 1980, several parts of Yugoslavia quickly declared their independence. The Serbs, with superior armed forces and the arrogance of traditional rulers, struck brutally against Bosnian Muslims and Croats.

Europeans and Americans protested but -- stunningly and unforgivably -- did little at first to prevent the violence. Eventually they gave the Bosnian Muslims and Croats the means to fight back, and the Serbs accepted separation. Later, when Albanians in the Serb province of Kosovo rebelled against their cruel masters, the United States and Europe had to intervene again. The result there will be either autonomy or statehood for Kosovo.

The lesson is obvious: overwhelming force was the best chance for keeping Yugoslavia whole, and even that failed in the end. Meantime, the costs of preventing the natural states from emerging had been terrible.

The ancestors of today's Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds have been in Mesopotamia since before modern history. The Shiites there, unlike Shiites elsewhere in the Arab world, are a majority. The Sunnis of the region gravitate toward pan-Arabism. The non-Arab Kurds speak their own language and have always fed their own nationalism.

The Ottomans ruled all the peoples of this land as they were: separately. In 1921, Winston Churchill cobbled the three parts together for oil's sake under a monarch backed by British armed forces. The Baathist Party took over in the 1960's, with Saddam Hussein consolidating its control in 1979, maintaining unity through terror and with occasional American help.

Today, the Sunnis have a far greater stake in a united Iraq than either the Kurds or the Shiites. Central Iraq is largely without oil, and without oil revenues, the Sunnis would soon become poor cousins.

The Shiites might like a united Iraq if they controlled it -- which they could if those elections Mr. Bush keeps promising ever occur. But the Kurds and Sunnis are unlikely to accept Shiite control, no matter how democratically achieved. The Kurds have the least interest in any strong central authority, which has never been good for them.

A strategy of breaking up Iraq and moving toward a three-state solution would build on these realities. The general idea is to strengthen the Kurds and Shiites and weaken the Sunnis, then wait and see whether to stop at autonomy or encourage statehood.

The first step would be to make the north and south into self-governing regions, with boundaries drawn as closely as possible along ethnic lines. Give the Kurds and Shiites the bulk of the billions of dollars voted by Congress for reconstruction. In return, require democratic elections within each region, and protections for women, minorities and the news media.

Second and at the same time, draw down American troops in the Sunni Triangle and ask the United Nations to oversee the transition to self-government there. This might take six to nine months; without power and money, the Sunnis may cause trouble.

For example, they might punish the substantial minorities left in the center, particularly the large Kurdish and Shiite populations in Baghdad. These minorities must have the time and the wherewithal to organize and make their deals, or go either north or south. This would be a messy and dangerous enterprise, but the United States would and should pay for the population movements and protect the process with force.

The Sunnis could also ignite insurgencies in the Kurdish and Shiite regions. To counter this, the United States would already have redeployed most of its troops north and south of the Sunni Triangle, where they could help arm and train the Kurds and Shiites, if asked.

The third part of the strategy would revolve around regional diplomacy. All the parties will suspect the worst of one another -- not without reason. They will all need assurances about security. And if the three self-governing regions were to be given statehood, it should be done only with the consent of their neighbors. The Sunnis might surprise and behave well, thus making possible a single and loose confederation. Or maybe they would all have to live with simple autonomy, much as Taiwan does with respect to China.

For decades, the United States has worshiped at the altar of a unified yet unnatural Iraqi state. Allowing all three communities within that false state to emerge at least as self-governing regions would be both difficult and dangerous. Washington would have to be very hard-headed, and hard-hearted, to engineer this breakup. But such a course is manageable, even necessary, because it would allow us to find Iraq's future in its denied but natural past.

Leslie H. Gelb, a former editor and columnist for The Times, is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations

Human rights, Kurds, and the future of Iraq

Human rights terminology was virtually non-existent in the political, social, and administrative dictionary of the former Iraqi regime. Human rights were casually violated on a daily basis. Genocidal acts occurred in many forms, from the north to the south of Iraq. Chemical weapons were used all across the northern Iraqi Kurdistan Region from the northwest near the Turkish border to the southeast near the Iranian border in dozens of locations. Halabja was but one of many incidents, and the most infamous.

This was all part of a campaign, the "Anfal Campaign," that saw the disappearance of over 100,000 civilians and the destruction of over 4,000 communities, including large towns of over 50,000 residents. Tens of thousands of families fled to neighboring countries, or were forcibly relocated to reservation-like, so-called "collective" towns away from their livelihoods. Thousands more families were forced off their lands in a process commonly called Arabization.

Not only the people of Iraqi Kurdistan suffered to the extreme. Other Iraqis were subjected to atrocities and other human rights violations.
The people of Iraq endured 35 years of oppression and atrocities that excelled in creativity and cruelty. Many of us have endured to see the downfall of one of the most brutal regimes in human history. There are many among us who were deliberately deprived of the opportunity to endure. Let us never forget them. Let us never forget the dozens of mass graves that continue to be discovered.

Iraq is a uniquely rich country, not only rich in oil and water, but especially rich in its human resources. We are an educated, highly skilled, and hardworking people. Iraqis work. But today, we are a country mostly in ruins, with enormous debt, struggling hard to reconfigure ourselves and rush into a new future where personal security and political stability are the norms of everyday life throughout the country.

The former regime not only flagrantly violated human rights, but was also instrumental in destroying the very fabric of Iraqi society. Economic hardship in a very rich country, with underpaid civil servants, led to widespread corruption in all aspects of life. The crimes of the former regime are incalculable.

The international community has a moral duty to expose and examine these atrocities and to help the Iraqi people in healing very deep wounds. The survivors of genocide need to be treated, notably those who have suffered the effects of chemical weapons. Their losses need to be examined and restitution made in order for justice to prevail.

We know we are an important country, not only because of our oil, but also because of our location and the strong characteristics of our people. With our wealth, our skills, our hardworking nature, with our energies channeled in constructive directions, we have the potential to become one of the leading countries of the region, a country that lives in peace within itself and with its neighbors.

We are the victims and survivors of yesterday's Iraq. Only, to survive is not our ultimate aim. We are also the visionaries and builders of tomorrow's Iraq where every Iraqi life is lived with dignity, in prosperity, with full respect for the very word "life."

The current transitional government of Iraq may be new, but very capable people are handling all portfolios. Among 25 ministers, 17 are PhD holders, which makes our cabinet perhaps one of the most educated in the world. Their capacities and determination to function under the current very difficult circumstances are strong signs of hope for Iraq's future. In addition to the 24 portfolios in the cabinet, a Ministry of Human Rights was formed in order to concentrate attention on this important issue at the highest level of authority.

There may well be certain circles that doubt the rate of success of the present Iraqi government and also believe democracy cannot be introduced to Iraq, and human rights, after years of violations, will not be respected. I have news for them: Iraq can be democratic and will be democratic.

The people of the Iraqi Kurdistan Region, since 1991 only one step away from the everyday brutality of the former regime, managed to conduct an exemplary experiment in developing democracy. Successful elections were held at the regional level and at the municipal level. Democratic institutions continue to be developed, and the Kurdistan National Assembly, our parliament, enjoys healthy debates. In the Iraqi Kurdistan Region, we have 12 years experience in building democracy. We are secure and stable. We believe our experiment and experience can be very well replicated and reflected throughout the rest of Iraq.

We may have a long road ahead of us. But we have a long road behind us. We know how to endure and struggle on long roads. The first step has been taken. And it has been a giant step. We feel we are no longer lonely travelers. We want the world to travel with us throughout our very promising journey. We want the world with us every step of the way to help us rebuild Iraq as a country where we both will enjoy each other's company and enjoy its prosperity and well being and promise.-Published 18/12/2003©bitterlemons-international.org

The two state solution: Divide and democratise!

This time I will present my analysis of the situation in Iraq in terms of questions and answers. This, I hope, will help to simplify the complexity of the situation and provide some answers to difficult questions, that is as far as I can.

What is happening in Iraq?

Well. It seems that the dialectics of occuliberation is tilting towards occupation and this creates resistance.

Is there resistance to occupation?

Now, yes. But not because it is occupation. Rather because it failed to fulfil its promise of liberation and democracy. The very continuation of instability and lack of any real perspective of peace and democracy mean that people are getting fed up. They lose hope. They lose trust. Then they return to their old habitual patterns.

What do you mean?

I mean liberation was not just the toppling of Saddam. Even Saddam himself is alive and kicking. He has been treated as prisoner of war. So the embodiment of tyranny is there. He has been visited by Red Cross. None of his co-murderers have been punished either. At the same time both mass graves and mass killings continue to demarcate Iraq. Saddam must be the happiest Iraqi person now wherever he may be. His legacy goes on.

Why is it so?

Liberation means making people free. And people themselves should decide how they can be free. I know it is not such a simple matter but with some understanding this process could have been simplified. People or rather the peoples of so-called Iraq should have been given opportunity of self-determination. You cannot liberate while insisting on keeping structures of coercion and oppression on the one hand and impose a Governing Council which has already become an example of cronyism, nepotism and corruption. The only thing that distances them from despotism is impotence and lack of power.

So you agree with Sistani that there should be, or have been, free elections to establish legitimate authority?

Yes, I agree with elections but not with what Sistani aims to achieve from elections. He wants to achieve freedom and power for his people, the Shias, who did suffer from Saddam's oppression, but he wants also freedom to deprive others from their freedom. He wants to replace Saddam, impose an Islamic state and ultimately practise oppression and genocide against those who disagree with Shi'te world vision. Muqtada Sadr wants to do all this right away with the power of sword not word.

In this case, how can elections be held to decide what people want or to achieve freedom as you describe it? First: elections will lead to the Shia's victory as they are the majority? Second, Iraq has not been ready for elections for security reasons?

True and wrong. True if we look at Iraq as one united whole and insist on keeping it as such. This is I think the essence of the failure of the coalition's policy in Iraq. But this approach is wrong. A lot could have been achieved if Paul Bremer had not stubbornly insisted on his illusion of one unified democratic Iraq. This is a contradiction in terms. Iraq can never be democratic as a one whole which can only be made possible through coercion or deception.

So it is a political failure which is in danger of being turned into a military one. One would think that the British who laid the bloody foundations of this violently-sustained Iraq would have become wiser and would initiate realistic achievable plans for restructuring Iraq. But it seems that Arab-influenced old thinking has prevailed so far. What I want to say is:

Yes, it was possible to have had elections in Iraq by now, after a year of occuliberation, and instead of this spread of violence, it was possible to have had in place institutions and structures of freedom and democratically-oriented processes.

But I do not mean Iraq-wide elections as Mr Bremer has wrongly planned and insisted upon!

From the start both Kurdistan and Shia areas were calm and supportive of liberation. The US and Britain should have recognised the simple fact that it would be impossible to bring these three entities with a bloody history of conflict together within one centralised state. Sistani should have been told "yes you can have elections in all Shia' areas to elect a regional assembly."

The Kurds would do the same in Kurdistan including Kirkuk and Mosul.

This would have reduced the problems the coalition suffer from by 75% and would have isolated the pro-Baath Sunnis forcing them eventually to give up violence or otherwise be defeated or neutralised paving the way for elections in Sunni areas too allowing them to elect their own assembly too.

In this way democracy could be established through decentralisation and neither Shia's nor Sunnis would be allowed to control others. The right framework for the emergence of civil society institutions would have been established. By now the coalition could show the world 90% success with money flowing in from everywhere for reconstruction and regional powers would be too embarrassed or frightened to be able to interfere. But without political solution even economic reconstruction would be impossible.

Why did this not happen?

This has not happened yet because of ignorance and arrogance, because of political failure, because of lack of courage and imagination, because truth was replaced by lies for political purposes. Because everyone lied to Americans and Americans lied to themselves as they seemed to be interested only in ensuring the flow and export of oil and keeping Kurdistan as an Arab colony.

Ahmad Chalabi lied to the Americans, exaggerated his non-existing support and the reliability of information his imaginary spies collecting for Americans. He gathered around himself a gang of opportunists attracted by CIA money who argued wrongly that Iraq can become a democracy within days after the fall of Saddam! Alawi and Hakim did the same.

The Kurdish leaders lied to Americans and betrayed their own people and martyrs when they dishonestly, opportunistically or treacherously alleged that the only hope for democracy in Iraq is to keep it united and put forward this disgusting far-fetched argument that their own great model of democracy in Kurdistan! could be copied in Baghdad and the rest of Iraq. I translated a speech by Jalal Talabani last year in which he almost described the Kurds as savages wondering why Kurdish savages could establish this fantastic democracy in the north and not the civilised Baghdad and Arabs would be able to establish even a more fantastic democracy than his in the centre and south of Iraq!!

Instead of offering themselves as the saviours of Iraq! and champions of an illusionary Iraqi unity achieved at the expense of Kurdish blood and skulls, the Kurdish leaders should have been the first to join or even initiate the growing thrust of political opinion in the US that Iraq cannot be put back together as a unitary state and its division is inevitable to ensure peace and any opportunity for real democracy in the area. For Kurds anafl should have made it even degrading and dishonourable to describe Kurds as Iraqis.

Even now everyone turns a blind eye to these facts. The UN envoy closes his eyes and mind to the real clear divisions in Iraq which would make it impossible to have any Iraq-wide elections in foreseeable future or to transfer authority to any credible and able government.

So what is happening now?

Now everything is in a mess. I do not want to compare the situation to Vietnam though it has been ignorantly developed to a similar situation. Even the external dimension is there. From the first day there have been secret or overt interventions by Iran and Syria. Now the Iranian role is dangerously increasing through support to Muqtada al-Sadr militants. Even Turkey is supporting them through their alliance with the Turkoman Front. Money flows from Arab countries. Anti-American al Qaida and other Islamic fundamentalists with terrorist training and fighting experience have been attracted to Iraq and their passage has been facilitated by Syria and Iran. And Iraqi is still awash with oceans of arms and well-trained Saddam's Fedayeen, which did include thousands of Shias.

So is it Vietnam?

It is not Vietnam as people do not have real reason to fight Americans who have liberated them. But as liberation has not been realised because of sticking to the bloody one-Iraq project, everything has been turned into a bloody mess. People have been disillusioned. Terrorists have opportunity to recruit people for resistance and create mayhem even in previously peaceful cities and areas. If this situation continues, yes it will become partly Vietnam if the analogy is basically the continuation of bloodshed and both American and Iraqi deaths. But more dangerously it could become partly Palestine. A lethal mixture of the two. Punish everyone for the guilt of the few: that is what will happen when the only solution envisaged is a military one and when politicians reach a cul de sac because the solutions they envisaged through brainstorms and facilitated group exercises in Washington and London are barren and irrelevant in the context of post-Saddam Iraq. They were based on ignorance, fancy and prejudice.

So now there will be serial escalation of killings, counter-killings, of revenges and counter-revenges until important sections of Shi'a are radicalised, the model of West bank and Gaza is transplanted and the moderate Shia including the useless members of the Governing Council would become too embarrassed or scared to continue their support for the US. It looks like a scenario of doom and gloom. But I am afraid this is the direction of the events. It does not make a difference whether Mr Rumsfield describes the Shia and Sunni fighters as thugs or as guerrillas. The other serious consequence will be the collapse of the current international coalition which is already been turned from the "coalition of the willing" to "the coalition of the wavering."

So what is the solution? Can the US and Britain just cut and run?

No. Though this is not an impossible outcome but it will be a suicidal one for the US in particular. Iraq, as I have explained above, has attracted all anti-American terrorists. The axes of evil Iran and Syria are greatly involved. Both want to open another terrorist front against America to relieve the pressure they are under for stopping their intervention in Lebanon, support for Hamas and Hezbollah, stopping their attempt to obtain weapons of mass destruction and bringing about democratic reforms in their countries. However great the cost maybe, it will be suicidal for the US to cut and run. Iraq will actually become the centre of international Islamic terrorism and will destabilise the whole Gulf and Middle East region. Afghanistan and Pakistan will come under great pressure and will be next targets for defeating America. Even Turkey will be encouraged or obliged to upgrade its version of moderate Islam to a more radical anti-western one. Hamas and Hizbollah will be greatly strengthened and terrorist attacks in the West will multiply until first Israel is demolished and second Europe will accept all the demands of Islamists including universal hijab and semi-Islamic state!

So you suggest that America must send more forces?

No I say it is criminal to sacrifice so many American and Iraqi lives for political failure. This is not necessary if Iarq is allowed to be what it is and was: different nations. I say choose the only right, realistic and legitimate solution. Divide Iraq to democratise it. Don't centralise it to Vietnamize it.

Let Kurdistan, including Kirkuk and Mosul, keep its freedom and hold elections immediately before the waves of terror and destruction reach Kurdistan as a result of the criminal anti-democratic anti-Kurdisatni policies of the so-called Kurdish leaders who defy the will of Kurdistani people represented by the Referendum Movement which collected 1.7 million signatures for independence in just four weeks.

Let Kurdistan be independent and then it will be up to the iraqi Arabs, both Shi'a and Sunni, whether they want to be together in one or two states. We as Kurds do not want to be part of a state which has been enslaving, oppressing and eliminating us for 80 years. If so-called Kurdish leaders describe us as Iraqis they are insulting us and our martyrs. They are liars and traitors. It will be total destabilisation of Kurdiostan if it is forced to reintegrate into Aarb Iraq after 30 June 2004.

I hope both Mr Bush and Mr Tony Blair will seriously consider and agree this sole solution for the sake of the stability in the Middle East. Give a real model of democracy and freedom to the peoples of Great Middle East!

The Kurdish resistance to Southern Kurdistan annexing with Iraq


Sheikh mahmud Barzanji:
In the steep hill of victory ahead of us, I expect unity from you and sacrifice from myself."

- Sheikh Mahmud Barzanji, the King of Kurdistan: from a speech on 18 November 1918 in the presence of the British administrator Major Noel arrived in Sulaimaniya

The Mandate Years saw the establishment of the first independent Kurdish 'government' led by Malik Sheikh Mahmoud Barzanji in the region of Sulaimaniya (aka Sulemani) in 1919. This progression was short-lived: Barzanji was eventually arrested and exiled to India; South Kurdistan was then forcibly annexed to Iraq. As the result, throughout its history Iraq has never enjoyed full territorial integrity. Parts of Kurdistan have always been controlled by the Kurds, albeit through de facto and self-imposed administrations, particularly since the start of the armed Kurdish National Movement in 1961, and after the first Gulf War in 1991.

Kurds learned the lesson of betrayal and, to this day, remain doubtful of the intentions of the West on the Kurdish issue. Now, as Iraq goes through a transitional stage in its history, and its government is overshadowed by the insurgents, the Kurdistan Regional Government is perhaps the only functional government in Iraq. Almost a hundred years since the start of the British Mandate, Kurds find themselves with yet another opportunity to break away from Iraq to form an independent nation. History has repeated itself. What should not be repeated, however, is a betrayal of the Kurds by US-British forces in the 21st century.

During World War I, the British occupied the Basra and Baghdad Willayets. Britain did not occupy the Willayet of Mosul or main regions of Southern Kurdistan. They did, however, send political officers to encourage the Kurds to rise up against the Ottoman Empire. Colonel Sir Arnold Wilson, the British Civil Commissioner in Iraq, declared that Britain's intention was the formation of a Kurdish independent state in Southern Kurdistan under the tutelage of the British. [1]

On the 1st November 1918, Wilson convened a meeting of Kurdish tribal leaders and the influential personalities. He appointed Sheikh Mahmud Barzanji as the governor of Suleimaniya on behalf of the British. All tribal leaders, except a section of the Jaff tribe and Babakir Selim Agha from Pizhdar tribe, accepted his leadership.[2] One month later, Bazanji presented Wilson with a document signed by 40 tribal chiefs demanding the granting of certain rights to the Kurdish people. However, concerned that the British were not serious about the formation of a Kurdish State but only gaining time, Sheikh Mahmoud bypassed them to announce the independence of Southern Kurdistan. He led the first Kurdish revolt in May 1919, pushing the British forces out of Suleimaniya, its surroundings, and the town of Halabja.

An army of 1,500 Kurds engaged in a fierce battle with British forces in the Baziyan region, near Sulaimaniya. "Shari Darbandi Baziyan" is a national pride in the Kurdish history. Unsurprisingly, Kurdish forces were defeated by the superior numbers and technology of the British force, and 'The great Sheikh was injured and arrested; he was then exiled to India.' [3] This treatment of a religious leader was seen as a great insult to the Muslim Kurds, and left a deep mistrust between Kurds and Britain for generations to come. A new policy was formed to safeguard Kurdish cultural rights within the boundaries of the Iraqi state. This policy was designed to win the support of the Kurds and to overcome some difficult situations. They were quickly forgotten. [4]

For example, on 18 November 1918, Major Noel arrived in Sulaimaniya. The day after his arrival he gave a public speech to the population of the province, including the tribal leaders, in the presence of Sheikh Mahmud Barzinji, stating in Farsi:

"I address you in the name of the British Government and the British Governor General. You have been freed from slavery. Now you are free and independent. Sheikh Mahmud Barzinji is the Governor of Kurdistan. I deliver you this news on behalf of the British Governor General in Baghdad." [5]

He lied.

The Kurds refused to become part of Iraq, boycotting the July 1921 referendum to choose Faisal as monarch of Iraq. Kurdish parliamentarians in Baghdad refused to attend Faisal's coronation ceremony in the August of that year.

In 1922 the brother of Mahmoud Barzanji, Sheikh Qadyir, gained Turkish support to attack British forces occupying the South Kurdish regions of Amedi (aka Amediye) and Koy Sanjaq (aka Koye). In October of that year, fearing that Kurdistan - particularly the Mosul Willayet - might fall into the hands of the Turks, the British reappointed Sheikh Mahmoud as the governor of Sulaimaniya. Upon his arrival, Barzanji declared the formation of a Kurdish state, with the town of Sulaimaniya as its capital city. He introduced a cabinet of eight ministers:

- Abdulkarim Alaka, Christian Kurd - Finance Minister
- Ahmed Bagy Fatah Bag - Customs Minister
- Hajy Mala Saeed Karkukli - Justice Minister
- Hema Abdullah Agha - Labour Minister
- Mustafa Pasha Yamolki- Education Minister
- Shaikh Qadir Hafeed - Prime Minister
- Shekh Mohammed Gharib - Interior Minister
- Zaky Sahibqran - Defence Minister of the Kurdish National Army

A month later, on 18 November 1922, he once again defied British rule, declaring himself the King of Kurdistan (Maliki Kurdistan).[6] The Kurdish newspaper "Roji Kurdistan" , referring to Kurdistan as separate to Iraq. [7]

Once again, the Kurds were suppressed by the British forces. A combined Royal Air Force (RAF) and British ground forced Malik to escape to Persia and disperse his army. [8] The 24 December 1922 Declaration gave little satisfaction to the province of Sulaimaniya, which had no desire to come under the authority of King Faisal of Iraq and sought to pursue the struggle for a free and united Kurdistan.

In 1924 after the British ground troops disappeared, Sheikh Mahmud returned again to start his struggle for a Kurdish state. The RAF bombed his personal headquarters in Suleimaniya. Once again Mahmud escaped. [9]

The British hoped that this would end Barzanji's struggle, however, once more in 1930 he led his forces through Persian borders in hoping to detach Southern Kurdistan from Iraq.

On the 26 March 1931 the Iraqi government formally asked the British high commissioner for air-action against those villages sheltering the rebel Kurdish army. Later, aerial reconnaissance located Sheikh Mahmoud. The RAF then conducted autonomous operations against his rebel force, with the Iraqi army supporting the operation by re-establishing government authority.

Subjected to continuous aerial attack and unable to re-supply his guerrillas, Barzanji retreated into Persia and surrendered on 13 May 1931.

Soon after this Sheikh Mahmud was captured and was taken into a prison in South Iraq. From this day South Iraqi became exile for Kurds. When the Baath Party came to power in 1968, South Iraq became a place of mass graves of Kurdish civilians. Iraqi political parties state, 'The Kurdish-Arabic partnership is rooted in history.' Perhaps it is more accurate to say it is rotten in history.

Referendum

Modern Iraq was born in the aftermath of World War I, as the great colonial powers dealt with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. It was carved out of three former Ottoman provinces -- a Kurdish-dominated region in the north and two Arab regions to the south. Artificial boundaries were drawn to suit the colonial masters' administrative needs, not the logic of the local terrain.

The British installed a monarchy under the Hashemite King Emir Faisal (1885-1933) at the Cairo Conference of 1921, "legitimizing" the appointment by presenting Iraqis with a dubious, one-question referendum that the new king won with a 96 percent favorable vote.

The Provinces of Mosul and Arbil (aka Hewler) voted in favour, and Kirkuk voted to delay its decision (later voting in favour of Faisal's Iraq in 1923). Interestingly, the Kurds asked for a separate Kurdish province but only on condition that they were not incorporated with the Kurds of Sulaimaniya. Only the population of the latter voted unconditionally against Faisal or any inclusion in Iraq.

In his official report to the Commission of the League of Nations' Mandated Territories, Sir Percy Cox noted that:[10]

"...the Kurds feared for their interests if Baghdad should hold the reins of industry and the economy in Iraq. They assumed they would be cheated. The Suleimaniya region decided not to participate in the election of the King of Iraq. In Kirkuk the Emir's candidacy was rejected and the Kurds demanded a Government of their own race . . . Suleimaniya was almost unanimous in rejecting outright any form of inclusion under Iraqi Government."

Arguably, the concept by which Iraq was created was a colonial carve up and the division of these Middle Eastern region, based on post-WWI colonial divisions, is out of date in light of the modern world's structure. The emergence of new nation-states has proven this.

Conclusions

The actions of the British Royal Air Force played an undoubtedly important role in the suppression of Sheikh Mahmoud's followers and in the future military history of the Iraqi regions. In the first occasion of the RAF being employed outside of the British Empire, the repeated bombardments by the RAF on Sulaimaniya and other rebel Kurdish towns not only caused civilian causalities but were, on some occasions, in violation of international military law. For instance, use of Delayed Action Bombs was in violation of The Hague Convention of 1907, and the British Manual of Military Law of 1914.

The single-question referendum to crown Prince Emir Faisal as King of Iraq, in 1922, took two years to complete. It is questionable as to whether this referendum asked the right question; for why ask whether to establish a former Saudi Prince, forced from Syria, as King of Iraq without first establishing whether or not a people - who had never seen Baghdad, and never taken part in a referendum and were struggling against the British to form their own state - in fact wished to be part of Iraq?

Britain was determined to annex South Kurdistan to the State of Iraq in order to balance between the Sunni and the Shiia populations, as most Kurds are Sunni Kurds. Discovery of oil in the Kurdish city of Kirkuk can also be seen as a determining factor in annexing South Kurdistan to Iraq.

Some experts assume that the Kurds did not establish their own state to development of Kurdish nationalism; however the ceaseless struggle during the defining of Iraq to establish an independent state could not have succeeded quickly against such larger and better equipped military forces as that of the British.

The Arab, Turkish and Persian nationalists fiercely defend the territorial integrity of Iraq as much as they fight the "Imperialist powers", discarding the original and flexible forging of Iraq's territory and its construction at the hands of "imperialist powers" in favour of fighting for their land. Yet, the Kurdish aspiration and struggle for their own nation-state was brutally oppressed by the established superpowers in the area, such as British Mandate.

This brief but rather important time in defining the Middle East is an important part of Kurdish history, but a nation such as the Kurds can only do so much in order to avoid oppression.

References

1. Lt-Col. Sir Arnold T. Wilson, Mesopotamia 1917-1920: A Clash of Loyalties, London, Oxford University Press, 1931, p.133.

2. Refiq Hilmi, Yadasht (Memories), Baghdad, Ma'arif Press.

3. Sa'id Badal, Taikhcheyeh Jonbishhayeh Meli Kurd [The History of Kurdish National Movements: From the 19th Century to the end of the World War II], The Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran's Publication, 1984, p.80.

4. By Saadulla Abdulla, British policy towards Kurdistan, KurdishMedia.com, 12 January 2003, http://www.kurdmedia.com/articles.asp?id=8852

5. Muhammad Rassul Hawar, Sheikh Mahmud and the Southern Kurdistan Government - in Kurdish, first volum, Jaff Press, London, 1990, page, 416

6. Dr Hussein Tahiri, KurdishMedia.com, Kirkuk: History should end controversy, 05 July 2002

7. Saadulla Abdulla, British policy towards Kurdistan, KurdishMedia.com, 12 January 2003, http://www.kurdmedia.com/articles.asp?id=8852

8. Robert Jackson, RAF in Action, (Dorset: Blandford Press, 1985), 20.

9. Air Staff Memorandum No. 16, 1924, Sir John Salmond Correspondence File in AIR/338.

10. I. S. Vanly, I.S., Kurdistan in Iraq, (ed. G. Chaliand), written in the second half of the seventies

Chronology of Events: 1918-1932: The British Mandate Years in Iraq

1534 - Mesopotamia is seized by the Ottoman Empire with brief interruptions in rule by Persia and the Egyptian Mamelukes.

1908 - The first attempts are made to organise a national Kurdish Movement.

1908 - In Constantinople, the Young Turks revolt against Ottoman rule. The Law of Equality was passed between all nations of the Ottoman Empire. The persecution of minority and non-Turkish groups was renewed in 1909

1910 - The Hiwa Society (Hiwa meaning 'hope') is founded in South Kurdistan as the Kurdish political association.

1914-1918 - World War I

1914 - War is declared on the Ottoman Empire by Britain on the 11th May. In December, Britain begins its invasion and occupation of Mesopotamia.

1916 - The secret Sykes-Picot Agreement is made on May 16th, anticipating the Ottoman Empire's partition between French and British rule. Despite agreement that the Willayets of Basra and Baghdad would be under British influence, and Mosul and Syria under French, Britain eventually took control of Mosul, Basra and Baghdad after fighting.

1918-1932 - The British Mandate Years in Iraq

1918 - On 3rd October, the leader of the Arab revolt against the Turks, the son of Sharif Husain of Hijazm and Faisal's Bedouin army enter Damascus, symbolically ending the Ottoman rule over the Arabs. After Ottoman defeat on the 30th October, the Truce of Modrus with Turkey is signed. On the 8th November, France and Britain issued a declaration outlining their joint aim to liberate those oppressed by the Ottomans, and to establish national governments authorised by a free choice of the indigenous populations. This declaration was followed on 1st December by Sheikh Mahmud presenting Sir Arnold Wilson with a document demanding certain rights to Kurds, signed by 40 tribal chiefs.
1919 - This year saw the beginning of a continuous struggle to create an Independent Kurdish State. The state of Iraq was formed by Britain on the 10th January of this year, combining the Willayets of Baghdad, Basra and Mosul. On the 23rd May, Sheikh Mahmud Berzenji led a series of revolts against the British in Sulaimaniya, in resistance of the annexing of South Kurdistan to Iraq. Winston Churchill in 1919, acting as the Secretary of State at the War Office, was in favour of finding military means of quickly terminating any action seen as disorder, prevailing among what he called 'uncivilised tribes' and 'recalcitrant Arabs,' i.e. Kurds and Afghans.

1920 - The Conference of San Rimo, on the 19-26 April, resolved to put into application all signed agreements between the Allied Countries, dividing the Near East into protectorate regions. Kurdish citizens boycotted the Iraqi referendum to approve the accession of Prince Faisal I to the throne. British Mandate over Iraq was approved by the League of Nations on 25th May, followed on the 2nd June by a widespread tribal uprising against the British militia in Iraq. French Mandate over Syria begins on the 24th July, their forces ousting Faisal and beginning occupation of Damascus. The Treaty of Sevres is signed on the 10th August, envisioning the creation of an Independent Kurdistan.

1921 - Emir Faisal bin Husayin - Sharif of Mecca - is made King of Iraq by the British High Commissioner, Sir Percy Cox, on the 27th August, to much disquiet in the Kurdish communities, particularly in the province of Mosul, following a faked referendum boycotted by the Kurds. Three Kurdish regions of Jezireh, Kurd-dagh and Arab-pinar are integrated within the Syrian state under Turkish-French Agreement on the 20th November.

1922 - On the 10th October the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty is signed, setting out the scope of Britain's involvement in Iraqi affairs and recognising the rights of Kurds to create their own government within the Iraqi State. Revolt of the Barzani Kurds after the end of the British Mandate is put off by the RAF.

1923 - The first Turkish Parliament, including 72 Kurdish deputies, is dissolved on the 3rd March, followed by spread of Turkish law forbidding the use Kurdish language to be used in schools, publications or other public forums. The Treaty of Lausanne replaces the Treaty of Sevres, ending the Allies' war against Turkey. This treaty, signed on the 24th July, leaves the Kurdish Question and the state of the Wilayet of Mosul in an unresolved capacity. Turkey declares itself a Republic of Turkey on the 29th October.

1924 - On the 10th July, Kurds in Hakari revolted, suppressed by Turkish military after 79 days of revolt. Nevertheless, in that time, 48 villages were destroyed. In December, a statement by the British High Commissioner recognised the right of Kurds to a Kurdish government.

1925 - Following revolts in North Kurdistan, the area is considered a military zone until 1965, which no foreigner is permitted to visit. The Revolt of Sheikh Said of Piran starts on the 14th February, rebels declared the city of Daranhini the capital of Kurdistan. On the 26th February, Kharpout became occupied by the rebels, disarming the military camp there. Within a month, vast regions of North Kurdistan became occupied, seizing the city of Diyarbekir (Amed). The revolution continued until October 1927.

On the 16th July the League of Nations suggested that Kurds form their own nation state, on ethnic grounds as they are neither Turks nor Arabs. However, despite making up five-eighths of the population, Kurdish Mosul was, on the 16th October, officially integrated into Iraq against the will of its Kurdish population.

1926 - The Revolt of Mount Agri begins on 16th May, where rebels disarmed and imprisoned the soldiers of the 28th Turkish Infantry division. This revolt spread to Hakkari, Siirt and Mardin, not suppressed until the 17th July 1926.

1927 - Under the leadership of Sheikh Enwer, a great Kurdish revolution began in Diyarbekir (Amed) and Agri on the 30th May. 2000 Kurdish fighters were killed in the final battles to suppress the rebellion, finally ending on the 7th October. Oil was discovered near Kurdish city of Kirkuk. The Kurdish National Committee was created in Iraq after the Mahmud Kurdish struggle. On the 14th December, a British treaty was signed declaring Iraq an independent country, but Britain did not relinquish three air bases.

1928 - Following the leadership of Resul Agha, a Kurdish uprising took place in Siirt. A second rebellion occurred under Ali Can.

1930 - Sheikh Ahmad and Sheikh Latif led a Kurdish revolt which lasted until October 1945 in North Kurdistan. In the region of Mount Ararat, Khoyboun led the organisation of a revolutionary movement. From 2nd June to 18th September, there was a Kurdish uprising in the Agri region. Throughout September Turkey takes a Nazist line towards the Kurdish citizens within the republic. Turkish newspaper Milliet publishes several articles and declarations - including from the Turkish Minister for Justice and the Premier Ismet Inonu - outlining anti-minority views, including that only the Turkish have rights to national claims of their country, and that other ethnic groups have only the right to serve. On the 16th November, a new Anglo-Iraqi treaty is ratified.

1931 - The revolt of Jaafer Sultan occurs in Iran in the Autumn.

1932 -In April, Turkish government passes a law expelling hundreds of thousands of Kurds from Northern Kurdistan into the central and western areas of Turkey. Iraq gains formal independence from Britain on 3rd October, though uncertainties about southern borders lead to frequent skirmishes between Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and Kuwait.

Thanks to Michelle Johnson and Chris Lacey.

There is no military solution to the Kurdish question

The Kurdish question has gained momentum, both in regional and international arenas. Therefore, it begs the question for how long the states ruling over Kurdistan will continue to deny the Kurdish rights.

Over a century of suppression and attempts at elimination of the Kurds, both physically and culturally, it has been proven that there is no military solution to the Kurdish question. If a military solution was a viable option, by now, the Kurds in Northern Kurdistan (Turkey) who demanded Kurdish cultural and political rights would be eliminated and other Kurds would have been Turkified. A similar scenario would have happened to the Kurds in Eastern Kurdistan (Iran). The Kurds in South Kurdistan (Iraq) would have been physically eliminated by successive Iraqi governments and the Kurds in Western Kurdistan (Syria) would have been Arabised.

However, as we have seen the opposite is true in all parts of Kurdistan. The Kurdish demands for cultural and political rights in North, East and West Kurdistan have grown stronger than ever and in the South the Kurds have been able to impose a Kurdish federal government on the new Iraqi government. The Kurdish self-consciousness has reached an unprecedented level in Kurdish history and there is no return to previous state of affairs. Thus, the only way forward is to try to find a political solution to the Kurdish question in all parts of Kurdistan.

Unfortunately, successive rulers of Kurdistan cannot understand this fact and they insist on a military solution to the Kurdish question. For the last several years the suppression of the Kurds in the West (Syria) has increased. More recently, the Turkish military used force to suppress Kurdish demonstrators which resulted in the killing of 16, several of whom were children under ten years old. The Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan who leads a doctrine of 'Kemalist Islamism' does not seem to see any other solution to the Kurdish question other than military force. During the Kurdish demonstrations in Diyarbekir and other Kurdish towns to legitimise their suppression, he called the demonstrators 'the pawns of terrorism' and said if necessary they would shoot at women and children. It seems that the rulers of Kurdistan are determined to solve the Kurdish issue through military means which has thus far proven unsuccessful. Is there any way out of this vicious circle?

Turkish, Persian and Arab intellectuals have a duty in trying to promote a peaceful solution to the Kurdish question as an alternative to military force; a duty that they have failed to fulfil so far. This duty falls on them not only as a responsibility that they have towards the Kurds as a nation who need to fulfil their national aspirations but as intellectuals who are responsible for the future of their own people.

Since Kurdistan was subdivided among Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria, the Kurds in different parts of Kurdistan have been subject to suppression and they have been deprived of their basic human rights. Kurdish demands for cultural and political rights have been met with oppression, persecution and genocide. Suppression of the Kurds has increased the human rights abuses in Kurdistan by the ruling states. Thousands of Kurds have been detained and imprisoned each year. Historically, all parts of Kurdistan have been treated as military camps. Kurds have been tortured, imprisoned, raped and executed by the military apparatus of the ruling states.

Alongside the Kurds even non-Kurdish population such as Turks, Persians and Arabs have suffered. In response to the Kurdish question the military organs of the states ruling over Kurdistan were empowered and given unlimited authority. These organs have become intolerant of any dissidents within these countries. They have suppressed their own people to maintain their grip on power and opposed democratisation of their societies. In this process, not only Kurds have suffered human rights abuses but the dominant nations in these countries as well.

Furthermore, the states ruling over Kurdistan have spent billions of dollars each year buying weapons to suppress the Kurds. Fighting between the ruling governments and Kurdish forces has cost thousands of lives on both sides. Alternatively, these governments could invest their financial and human resources to build and advance their own country rather than the suppression of the Kurds. These are issues that the Turkish, Persian and Arab intellectuals have failed to understand. A peaceful solution to the Kurdish question is not only to do with the Kurds but it is essential for progress, development and prosperity of the dominant nations.

In searching to find a solution to the Kurdish question one could talk about political boundaries, geography, geopolitics, geostrategic issues and many other 'geos' but in reality the Kurdish question is not as complex as some people try to portray. It is simply the question of a nation of over 40 million people with their own distinct history, language, and culture who have been suppressed for decades. As we enter the 21st century, ruling states continue to deny the Kurds their basic human rights. They still deny that a Kurdish nation with its own distinct identity exists, and do not consider granting the people any of their legitimate rights.

Therefore, decades of suppression, persecution, genocide and destruction of Kurdistan and denial of Kurdish identity have taught the Kurds that they can no longer live under suppression. They need to determine their own future so they can nurture their culture and plan their own future, free from persecution. Self-determination is the legitimate right of the Kurdish nation. Sooner or later there will be an independent Kurdish state.

The Kurdish nation has suffered for decades and deserves to live in peace and security. Kurds should be able to determine their social, political, economic and cultural rights. These rights have been recognized by the United Nations. Article 1:1 of the UN International Human Rights Covenants states, "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."

Why should there be more bloodshed? The states ruling over Kurdistan have to accept that a united independent Kurdistan is an inevitable fact. They should work with the Kurds to find a peaceful solution to the issue. Above all, having friendly neighbours are in their interests.

It also falls upon the Kurds (in fact it is long overdue) to form a coordinating body to promote understanding among various Kurdish political parties and organisations: a body that will promote social, political, economic and cultural development of Kurdish society; a body that would represent national aspirations of the Kurds and act as a voice for the Kurds in all parts of Kurdistan. Only then can the Kurds have a strong political voice to promote their cause on regional and international levels and push for a political and democratic solution to the Kurdish question.

Breaking up Iraq - Divide and heal

Despite the imminent formation of a government of national unity, Iraq is splintering into its three historic provinces. The break-up can be managed, but it cannot be avoided. The western powers and Iraqi nationalists must now accept that radical federalism is the only alternative to civil war.

Sometime in the next few days or weeks, a government of national unity will finally be formed in Iraq. This rare piece of good news will briefly rekindle some of the optimism about the political future of a unified Iraq that followed last December's election. But the reality on the ground is that Iraq is breaking up. The Kurdish north is largely independent and Basra, capital of the Shia south, is increasingly falling out of Baghdad's orbit. Moreover, there is anecdotal evidence of significant population movement--with Shias leaving Sunni areas, Sunnis leaving Shia areas, and Kurds (and many professionals of all identities) moving north to the relative sanctuary of Kurdistan.

The partitioning, or rather radical decentralisation, of Iraq is under way. This should not necessarily be seen as a problem. Historical Iraq was a place of three semi-independent parts--Kurdish north, Sunni centre and Shia south--within the loose framework of the Ottoman empire. It is the centralised Iraq--starting with Britain's creation of the modern state in 1921-23 and reaching its nadir in nearly three decades of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship--that has failed and should be allowed to die.

There are, however, powerful forces refusing to contemplate partition or "hard federalism." The radical Shia movement led by Muqtada al-Sadr, emerging as one of the most powerful groups in Iraq, rejects federalism as a divide-and-rule tactic and defends Iraqi identity in traditional nationalist terms. Opposition among the Arab Sunnis who have traditionally dominated the state is even stronger. Whether radical Islamists, ex-Ba'athists or secularists, Arab Sunnis see federalism as undermining everything they have stood for in nearly a century of Iraqi history.

The coalition--especially the British--is also opposed to further decentralisation. On his recent visit to Baghdad Jack Straw refused to discuss with Kurdish officials the distribution of power between regions and the centre--and the British insist on talking about Kurdish areas rather than a distinct Kurdistan region of Iraq. US officials too are committed to the status quo, but a debate is starting in Washington about how to respond to the new realities. Peter Galbraith, former US ambassador to Croatia, recently said that "a break-up has already taken place," and hoped that the constitution's federal provisions would be effective enough to avoid a "Bosnia-type" war.

Even if an Iraq dominated by its regions does come to be seen as part of the solution rather than the problem, there are many obstacles in its path. Turkey is nervous about an even more independent Kurdish north, and Iran might come to dominate the Shia south. Partition would also change the geopolitical balance of the middle east in unpredictable ways and would be seen in many parts of the world as an egregiously colonial parting act: what imperialists can assemble they can also disassemble. Inside Iraq there is the question of whether extensive population movement would be necessary--especially in flashpoints like Kirkuk and Baghdad itself. There is also the question of whether the two areas that have oil--the Kurdish north and the Shia south--would distribute any proceeds to the Sunni centre. And would there still be a place for a national army in a semi-partitioned Iraq? If so, what authority would it be answerable to? If not, would that increase the possibility of conflict between the three new entities?

Before considering how the logic of radical decentralisation arises from Iraq's own history, and examining various scenarios for the country's constitutional future, an illusion must be dispelled: the idea that Iraq already has a functioning federal constitution. Iraq has great democratic achievements under its belt since 2003, but the truth is that there is no agreement in the constitution over the powers of the regions, the distribution of oil revenues, the deployment of milit