The Kurds and Kurdistan: Turkish nationalist nightmare


I honestly and sincerely feel sorry for the Turkish people and the Republic of Turkey for being governed by incapable governments dominated by the whip of Turkish generals and devastated by scandals. As the developed parts of our world are advancing towards a new era both ideologically and technologically the Turkish state is still lost between the hypocrisy of an ideology that was born illegitimately and handicapped seventy six years ago.

Personally, I gave up believing anything that is uttered by Turkish politicians a long time ago. Often what is said by them is nothing more than hot air. Furthermore, the statements are full of contradictions and jargon rich in hypocrisy. Those who have followed statements by Turkish statesmen will know what is said by the Prime Minister, for instance, is often contradicted by the President, what is passed by parliament is usually annulled by the army and what is allowed by law is punishable by the State Security Court.

In the entire history of the Turkish Republic the name "Kurd" and any issue related to the Kurdish people have become not only a taboo but in reality a nightmare for the state. Seventy six years later, years that were full of blood, years that resulted in tens of thousands of people losing their lives, years that saw the destruction of thousands of villages, that caused misery to millions, that resulted in a big hole in the Turkish economy, the Turkish parliament at last admits Kurdish is not "a language spoken by mountain Turks." Maybe in another seventy six years and after much more damage the Republic of Turkey will recognize the existence of Kurdistan.

What a pity ultra right wing Turkish politicians have not had enough intelligence to realize that no force on earth can eradicate the existence of a nation when the members of that nation are ready to pay the price for their identity. What a pity the fascist elements within Turkey have not learnt that accepting other ethnic groups as equals and as partners can lead to a much more civilized society and positive results for everyone.

For days I have been having an urge to write an article in response to the latest saga caused by what was said by a number of Turkish nationalists, including the Defence Minister and other Turkish officials, in regard to the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and Iraqi Kurdistan but at the same time I have been asking myself the question: Is it worth your time and effort? I think many Kurds take what is uttered by some Turkish politicians for local consumption or for a particular selfish aim far too seriously than what it deserves. Nevertheless I guess something needs to be said so that even such characters and the Turkish soap oriented media realize the Kurds can not be intimidated by the threats coming out of those who feel outrage whenever the name "Kurd" or "Kurdistan" are uttered.

As if all the atrocities and the injustice practised against the Kurds under Ankara's rule were not enough now the fascists and the ultra right wing nationalists are having sleepless nights over the Kurds of another country, threatening that they ought to do or not to do as they are ordered. The KDP has done all possible, even at the cost of losing the support of some Kurdish patriots, to make it clear it had no aims to establish an independent Kurdish state, nor are there international indications that would help such an aim to be realized. Yet some elements within the Republic of Turkey who are only used to Kurds suffering, fighting each other and remaining backward are not, or pretend not to be, satisfied with the assurances given by KDP.

These elements can not put up with the progress going on in southern Kurdistan, with the Kurds not fighting each other. They hate to see visitors coming from all over the world to visit the areas under Kurdish control and express admiration for what they see there. In the past successive Turkish governments accused the "communist countries," the West and "Turkey's enemies" for the existence of the Kurds within Turkey. Now they are accusing Europe, the USA and "the enemies of Turkey" of aiming at establishing a Kurdish independent state in "Northern Iraq."

It is not the unity of Turkey that is in danger now but the unity of Iraq. Turkish politicians have for some time been threatening that the Turkish army will intervene "should the unity of the neighbouring Iraq be jeopardized." And as if this is not enough, a further hot air threat is occasionally added, as happened a few weeks ago: Turkey is entitled to the area in question, i.e. the Kurdish regions, including the oil rich Kerkouk and Mousel, because they were supposed to be a part of Turkey after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. While this is openly stated by a member of the Turkish government, however, Bulent Ecevit, the Turkish Prime Minister, and Muhammad Mahdi Saleh, the foreign minister of Iraq, meet in Ankara and a statement is made that both governments are in the process of signing a multi billion dollar trade agreement.

Of course, we should not forget the Turkomen who are living in the areas under Kurdish rule. "Turkey will do everything to make sure they are not oppressed by the Kurds," says General Kivirkoglu, the outgoing head of Turkish army. As one can see statements, hot air and contradictions every where.

The real reason for Turkey's right wing nationalists getting so agitated is the fact they do not want the Kurds to progress, they do not want a federal system within Iraq and simply because they do not want to see the Kurds proving to the world they can practice democracy and live a civilized life.

The absurd theatre presented by some Turkish politicians in the wake of the general elections and the way the Turkish media is presenting it is typical of a state that is still not confident about its identity and is not sure where it belongs. It is at the same time another shameful episode for a state that has for decades falsely been claiming to be modern and democratic. These sort of practices will take Turkey no where. Indeed they will harm the interests of Turkey as they have for seventy six years.

With such a mentality Turkey will neither be a part of Europe, nor will it earn the respect of the world, let alone the Kurdish people. I remain sad for Turkey. Let us hope better days are ahead for the citizens of Turkey and all the people who have to put up with such elements who maybe ultra nationalists but certainly lack vision and political maturity.

Comments: The future of Iraqi - Kurdistan: Federalism and Constitution

Comments on "The future of Iraqi - Kurdistan: Federalism and Constitution", KurdishMedia.com, By Dr Nouri Talabany, 03 September 2002

Let's make some points on the draft:

"and that the Arabs settled there as part of the Iraqi regime's policy of ethnic cleansing should be returned to central and southern Iraq from whence they came": It is both economically interrupting and inhumane to push people around on the single ground that they had been made tools of Saddam's policy. We assume that many who had been resettled will return to their home voluntarily if they can afford it. Others who have established a sound economic basis in Kurdistan will, in fact, strengthen the Kurdish economy and thus help overcome the burden of occupation.

Besides, politically, they will help to reduce Turkish influence. Only those settlers who have actively committed crimes should be resettled by court order. To secure the Kurdish character of the areas in question, it will be more useful to have Kurds from remote places settled there: It's a global trend that young people migrate from the mountains to the cities. It is also recommended that Kurdish returnees from abroad settle there (which also includes Jewish Kurds), and that Iraqi Kurds marry partners from other parts of Kurdistan. We are, anyway, convinced that Kirkuk and Mosul can be developed into cities of international appeal.

'official religion': Islam as official religion would prevent Kurdistan from being Kurdish, as for a Kurd, Newroz is the central festival of the year while Islam bans festivities of non-Islamic character. Accordingly, Islam as a religion can only be a private thing, never something 'official' for Kurds.

'telecommunications': Almost every autonomous territory of a European country (Gibraltar, Netherlands Antills, Greenland ...) has her own Internet-top-level-domain. Therefore, Kurdistan has to make sure to be in charge of the Internet (which refers to the top-level-domain, but will also insure that possible censorship by the Shiite majority does not affect Kurds).

'international relations': this is a dangerous term: In federal countries of Europe, the provinces have the right to pursue their own interregional policy (e.g. Arge Donaulaender, Arge Alp ...), to have their own development cooperation, to have international cooperations in fields of their responsibility like culture, science, environment. This is also essential for Kurdistan because of the international Kurdish diaspora

'issuance of national currency': It is extremely unwise to give a carte blanche for economic havoc to the federal government: Under current global conditions, independence of a country is mainly an issue of her economic performance and if Bagdad ruins the economy (e.g. in a way the Ankara-government has ruined Turkey) the Kurds will be caught as well.
It is essential that the central government is not allowed to accumulate

any foreign dept in the name of Kurdistan and that Kurdistan is allowed to use an appropriate hard currency if necessary.

Huelya Tektas, economist
Andreas J. Burghofer, science department
Eva Quas, Gesellschaft fuer bedrohte Voelker

Why the Kurds scorn the Turkish State so much?

Since the establishment of the Turkish state 80 years ago, inspired by the Kemalist ideology, Turkish nationalist rulers (both military and civilian) have been engaged in a savage campaign of genocide against the Kurdish language, culture, and ultimately its distinct identity. They have spared no known unscrupulous method in their path to reach their criminal goal.

In the hope to enhance its chances for the implementation of this inhuman objective, the Turkish state has been persistent in coordinating her efforts with that of the Iranian, Iraqi, and Syrian States to deal with the Kurds as a mutual threat and enemy. Thus any active Kurdish struggle for freedom and justice in any part of Kurdistan became an adopted concern for the Turkish State.

The current attempt of the Kemalist state to deprive the Kurds of South Kurdistan from some measure of freedom and control of their affairs is just another chapter in the same sinister strategy. However, in a more informed and a much better connected world, such schemes cannot be implemented in the darkness anymore. Also, it is even more difficult nowadays while the interests of the Kurds happens to be intertwined with that of a super power such as the United States, on which Turkey has accustomed to depend for both economical and military survival.

The art of Public Relations that the US politicians have learnt to love to use as an indispensable tool to win over the world, has effectively dressed up the United States in the fashionable attire of democracy that is well stitched together with vibrant seams of universal values. Its virtual image is expressed and advertised through the giant pipelines of modern communication to all the inhabitants of this planet. Of course, so far, the outside impression has been far from perfect; Some have chosen to believe, others only wish to believe, also there are those who condemn it outright as fake and hostile to their culture and/or religion.

In the years followed the two bitter experiences of 1975 and 1991, the Kurdish nation was more inclined to condemn the US image as fake and unreliable. However, in the last several years, they have gradually shifted to the "wish to believe" zone. The pace of this shift was accelerated after the terrorist incident of the 9/11 and the developments that have followed since. As victims of brutality and repression, it was natural for the Kurds to relate to the kind of man made tragedies that consume the lives of the many innocent people. Kurds have experienced it for many decades and on much greater scales than average US citizens can or would like to imagine.

Although the Kurds agree on US's definition for terrorism, but at the meantime they wonder why the US terrorist list of states does not include one of the most known violent and repressive states of the present times. There are no doubts that US's list is short of being fair and complete. US has excluded Turkey from her Axis of Evil list simply because Turkey is a US ally through the NATO. If the quality and the quantity of violent crimes and the presence of continued willingness to commit such crimes are amongst the measures that determine a terrorist state, then beyond any doubt, Turkey qualifies to be placed on the top of the list of the terrorist states.

Attempting to develop and produce Weapons of Mass Production should not be the key criteria to qualify a state as terrorist. Since such a criteria will automatically include many Western democracies. The rightful criteria should be based on the nature of the State and its overall ill intent and conduct. There is a significant amount of accumulated evidence to prove beyond any doubt that Turkey qualifies to be considered a grade "A" terrorist state. Turkish state is a violent institution that has committed and continues to commit hideous crimes that amount to crimes against humanity. They include mass murdering of civilians, mass destruction of people's property and their means of survival, mass eviction and forcible deportation of civilians, implementing the policy of cultural and identity genocide against the Kurds, torture, rape, corruption, and much more. To be honest and credible, any criteria that are set to identify terrorist states have to be based on universal human values rather than self-interests or military alliances.

As the developments are reaching a critical phase with regard to disarming Iraq and bringing the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein to an end, the Turkish regime is tempted to play a dangerous game. The Kemalist bloodthirsty generals in Ankara seem to be pushing their luck very aggressively by pressing to put their noses in the affairs of a people who happen to be extremely hostile to the Turkish state. Certainly, they are well aware of the high risk for catastrophic consequences for everyone in the region, as well as the credibility and interests of the United States and the European democracies.

Since after the Islamic AKP party managed to rise to power in Turkey, the generals are desperate for any possible opportunity to use in order to flex their muscles and dominate the political scene in turkey. This will be their precious chance to intimidate the AKP party and shut their voice out in all critical events. In the minds of the Kemalist Fascists, the Kurds always make the right scapegoats for their affordable price to pay. All the last 30 years, they couldn't raise a finger at Saddam Hussein who they accuse now for having persecuted their Turkmen cousins in Iraq. The Kemalist cowards were well aware of the fact that Saddam could fight back and through his punches right in their faces.

By insisting on its unwelcome military intervention in South Kurdistan, the Turkish state is deliberately provoking the sentiments of the Kurdish Nation. The Kurds have given a conclusive signal to every relevant party in this conflict that they do not want the Turkish army to enter South Kurdistan under any pretext. Kurds have a unanimous and firm conviction that the Turkish state is the number one enemy of the entire Kurdish Nation of more than 40 millions. The amount of the accumulated brutality and repression by the Turkish regime against the Kurds have not left the tiniest space for the Kurdish Nation to give the Turkish state an iota of the benefit of the doubt. As the record stands today, there are no powers on this planet to make the slightest dent in the conviction of the Kurds in favor of the Turkish State.

If the United States or any other nation resist to accept the Kurdish sentiment, it will not be because of their lack of information and evidence but rather because of their choice of continued tolerance to the practices of the Turkish state terrorism against the Kurds, as they have chosen to do so for many years. There are no doubts that such a tolerance is in sharp contrast to the noble cause of eradicating terrorism and promoting democratic principles and civilized values globally. Any future presence of Turkish forces in South Kurdistan will be viewed as a hostile act that will invite response from the Kurds as well as the Arabs of Iraq. If peace and democracy are to be the winning prize of the war on Saddam, then "most certainly" the Turkish State has to be kept out of the picture.

Today, if the Turks are allowed to make claims on a territory that used to be under the forcible and illegal occupation of the Ottoman Empire more than 80 years ago, then the same right should be granted to the Russians in the future, should they decide to make claims on Ukraine or any other territory that used to be part of the former Soviet Union. Such Turkish claim is not just bizarre, but it is also provocative, impulsive, irresponsible and arrogant.

Nowadays, the phrase "Lies and deception" has become President Bush's most favorite ingredient to season his speeches (related to Saddam Hussein and his regime) for maximum flavor. I hope that someday, he would try to be consistent in using the same phrase with no bias.

One of the pretexts of the Turkish state for military presence in South Kurdistan is to protect the rights of their Turkmen cousins. Top officials in the Turkish Government have stated that there are 5 million Turkmen in Iraq of whom 3 millions are in "North Iraq". According to CIA World Fact Book, Kurds and Arabs make up 95% of Iraq's population and the other 5% (1.2 million) are the rest. There are no doubts that Iraqi Christians such as the Assyrians, Childanis, and Armenians make up most of this 1.2 million. Even by the most conservative accounts, the Turkmen population in Iraq is not more than 250,000 to 300,000. Compared that to 5 million as the Turkish Government officials have claimed. The number is inflated by a factor of 16.7 to 20 folds. Isn't that a deliberate "lie and deception" to justify Turkish military intervention in South Kurdistan?

It is both hypocritical and unprincipled for the Turkish state to cry out for the protection of the rights of a few hundred thousand Turkmen in Iraq while for 80 years, it has savagely brutalized many millions of the Kurds who have come to believe that God must have decided to punish them most severely by placing them at the mercy of the Turkish establishment. While the Kurds of North Kurdistan have undergone and still continue to undergo the unimaginable brutality at the hands of the one of the most despicable regimes of the last 80 years, the Turkmen of Iraq have suffered the least of oppression from Saddam's tyrannical regime. The Kurds "who rightfully despise the Turkish state with passion" have treated and will continue to treat the Turkmen in Kurdistan as equals in every respect. It has never been in the nature of the Kurds to brutalize the others for reasons of race or religion. Kurds are known to respect the others and make them feel right at home. Having said that, I also believe that, "had the Kurds known that their invaders will turn out to become brutal oppressors, they would have reacted differently to those early intruders who put their feet on the soil of Kurdistan with their hidden intent to kill the owners and steal their land".

Although many Kurds wish to believe that the US Administration is more sensitive to the plight of the Kurds today than ever before and that they will mean well at the end, nevertheless, it will be highly risky for the Kurds to become drifted by mere wishes and speculations. From their past lessons, the Kurds must have learned that outside help does not come for free, neither it will last for ever. The creation of the No-fly zone was not a gift of mercy from the "senior" Bush Administration but a response to public sympathy to a catastrophic situation that average people in the Western World could witness on their TVs in their living rooms and feel deeply for it. May be if the same had happened 10 or 20 years earlier (during the cold war era), millions of the Kurds may have died of cold, starvation, or finished off by those Turkish solders who take pride and pleasure from showing off the heads of the beheaded Kurds as the prize of their courage and bravery. Let make no mistake about it that these same murderers of the Kurds are all still out there and are well taken care of to perform better in their next assignment.

While currently there is a chance for the Kurds to achieve some grounds in their long and costly struggle, it is the duty of every Kurd to be there for his/her nation at any possible capacity. The least they all can do is to join their voices and tell the whole world in one united and powerful voice of their feelings about their occupiers. Tell the people everywhere and by any means they can be reached about the brutal and barbaric conducts of the oppressors of the Kurdish Nation and the occupiers of Kurdistan. Tell them exactly what our occupiers have done to the Kurds in the past and what their intentions are now and expected to be in the future. Tell the whole world that the Kurds have the right to no longer be subjugated to others malicious wish and violent nature only to continue to suffer while witnessing their distinct identity is being gradually phased out of existence.

Kurds are a nation of more than 40 millions who live in Kurdistan "their traditional homeland". Just because Kurds were betrayed after the First World War, and were divided amongst some of the most brutal states, it does not mean that this injustice has to go on forever. While the civilized nations claim to be the advocates of humanrights, freedom and democracy, the Kurds have the choice to remind them that they are too entitled to these same rights. However, the main pay back from the collective Kurdish struggle should be anticipated from the unity of the Kurdish Nation and her immunity from being pulled apart by various forces that have hostile or eccentric interests in Kurdistan.

Some may argue that at a given time and under certain conditions only so much can be expected to be achieved. That may ring out as a logical statement but the fact is that the rights of a nation do not come in bits and pieces. A nation either has rights as a complete package or she does not have rights in a meaningful sense. Freedom is the backbone that holds the body of the rights together and gives it the strength and the immunity it needs to exist and survive. A nation that has rights is a nation that is free first to express her wish and determine her destiny. It is impossible for rights to exist for the Kurds while they are divided amongst several brutal states. As a nation, Kurds only have achieved their rights after they have achieved their full freedom and independence from their occupiers.

It is a big mistake for any Kurdish political entity to attempt to mutilate the rights of the Kurdish nation and present it to others in bits and peaces for bargaining. Such a method would only prolong the struggle of the Kurdish nation to eternity. Since the Kurds don't ask for more than freedom and independence "every nations legitimate right", there is nothing for them to be a cause for hesitation or fear of retribution. Sincere friends of the Kurds should never have any objection to the quest of the Kurds for their full rights. As for the enemies of the Kurds, let the voice of the truth and courage send shivers through their spines and make them live in a constant state of fear and anxiety.

Peter Galbraith: Divided, Iraq Can Stand


An interview with former ambassador Peter Galbraith

As the Bush administration faces increasing doubts about its performance in Iraq, its critics, spanning party lines, have sought ways to break the tedium of violence and redefine the American role in the country.

On the Democratic side, Peter Galbraith has played a significant part in trying to shape a consensus, particularly in a series of articles in The New York Review of Books. A former ambassador to Croatia who was deeply involved later in East Timor, Galbraith first gained prominence on Iraqi issues as senior advisor to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee between 1979 and 1993. During that time he published reports on the Iran-Iraq war and on the Iraqi regime's brutal campaigns against the Kurds. Galbraith is currently writing a book on Iraq.

Reason: What do you think will happen next in Iraq, once the upcoming December elections take place on the basis of the new constitution?

Peter Galbraith: The results of the December elections are likely to resemble the January elections. The peoples of Iraq will vote their ethnic or confessional identity, and few will vote as Iraqis. The Kurds will vote once again almost unanimously for the Kurdistan list and the Shiites will vote for the religious parties. Last January, the Sunni Arabs expressed their identity by not voting, which many now realize was a mistake. They will now vote for Sunni parties, and especially those linked to the old Sunni-dominated regime.

At the same time, former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and Ahmad Chalabi will get votes from secular Arabs, and perhaps some religious Shiites disappointed with the weak performance of the current government. Allawi, Chalabi, and the Communists have the only parties that are Iraqi--in the sense of crossing the Sunni-Shiite divide--and, even so, they don't have any support in Kurdistan.

Reason: As someone who has argued in favor of allowing Iraq's three main groups--Arab Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds--to go their separate ways in a newly structured state, do you feel the new constitution will allow this to happen peacefully, or will it lead to a violent breakdown, perhaps in the manner of Bosnia?

Galbraith: If Iraq breaks up, it will not be because of the new constitution, which merely acknowledges a breakup that has already taken place, and provides a structure for Iraq's peoples to coexist. I think the constitution can help avoid a Bosnia-type war because it resolves many of the issues--control of oil, the future of Kirkuk, power at the center--that could trigger a civil war. Iraq's peoples do not share common values, or even a desire to be in the same state. This constitution allows the Kurds to be secular and Western oriented, and the Shiites to have a pro-Iranian Islamic regime in the south. This is the only way to reconcile such disparate agendas within a single democratic state. But, if Iraq does break up, the constitution's loose federalism could make the process relatively painless.

Reason: There have been many theories on how to absorb the Sunni insurgency. In the context of the growing mood of decentralization in Iraq, do you feel a new central government has the capacity to act decisively on this front?

Galbraith: The Sunni insurgency can only be defeated by the Sunni Arabs. The constitution allows them to form their own region and have their own military. A Sunni Arab regional government and regional military may be able to win enough support to take on, or co-opt, many of the insurgents. An Iraqi Army loyal to a pro-Iranian Shiite government (and led by Shiites and Kurds) will never be seen as a national army by the Sunni Arabs.

Reason: In recent weeks there have been moves in the United States to impose a withdrawal timetable on the administration. The pressure to reduce troops is growing. Where do you think these dynamics are leading, particularly as we approach the November 2006 U.S. elections?

Galbraith: The American people have lost confidence in President Bush and his administration's conduct of the Iraq war, and for good reason. It has been the most incompetently executed major U.S. foreign policy undertaking of my lifetime. The pressure for withdrawal will only grow, and may become a tidal wave by next November.

Reason: You've been close to, or advising, Iraq's Kurds for some time. Some would say that makes you biased when it comes to Kurdish autonomy, or even independence, at the expense of recreating a unified Iraqi entity. How would you respond to that?

Galbraith: I have great sympathy for the Kurdish people who have suffered horribly under Iraqi rule. But my analysis is based on the strategic interests of the United States. Every Kurd wants independence, and keeping the Kurds in Iraq against their will is a formula for never-ending violence and repression. A unitary Iraq is unstable and unachievable; a loose federation may work. But, if not, the U.S. should work for a peaceful separation.

Reason: Some say there already is a victor in Iraq, and that's Iran. Do you agree, and how far can Iran go in Iraq without provoking an Iraqi backlash?

Galbraith: The Bush administration removed Iran's arch enemy, Saddam Hussein, and installed Iran's allies in power in Baghdad. The most powerful political party in Iraq is the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), and it was formed in Iran. Iran created, armed and trained the Badr Corps, the armed wing of the SCIRI, which is the most powerful armed force in southern Iraq, and which has infiltrated the police and army. No wonder the Iranians are gloating.

Reason: Do you feel that an American and Iraqi escalation on the border with Syria is now inevitable, particularly in light of Syria's growing international isolation because of the United Nations probe into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri?

Galbraith: Syria did not want the U.S. to succeed in Iraq for fear that Damascus would be the next American target. Until things started to go so badly in Iraq, there were people associated with the Bush administration talking openly about "doing Syria next." But, the stakes have gone up since the Hariri assassination. If Syria continues to allow terrorists to cross its border into Iraq, it is taking a terrible risk.

Reason: Do you feel the U.S. and Iraq might use Syria's Kurds against Damascus as a means of pressure in the future?

Galbraith: No.

Reason: How will Turkey react to growing Kurdish autonomy, particularly if the U.S. pulls out and effectively lifts its protection from the Kurds?

Galbraith: Turkey's policy toward Iraqi Kurdistan so far has been realistic and forward-looking. Iraq's constitution creates a fully self-governing Kurdistan and includes a procedure to resolve the status of Kirkuk. Turkey accepts that it is the sovereign right of Iraq to organize itself as the peoples of Iraq choose. Turkey has chosen--very wisely in my view--to work closely with the Kurdistan Regional Government. It has also promoted Turkish business in Kurdistan, including a Turkish company that is developing the Taq Taq oil field under a contract with the Kurdistan Regional Government.

Even Turkish hardliners recognize that Ankara has few alternatives. There is no military option. A Turkish intervention in northern Iraq would be much more difficult than its domestic 15-year war fought against the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), and would lead to international condemnation and possible sanctions. An intervention in Iraq would also kill Turkey's chances of joining the European Union. Many in Turkey now see Kurdistan as a kindred state--sharing Turkey's secular traditions and its Western and democratic orientation. Kurdistan is a buffer against an Islamic state in Arab Iraq. And, Turkey's policy of building close ties with the Kurdistan government gives it much more influence than a policy based on threats.

Reason: Among Democrats, you're listened to as a voice on Iraq policy; what are you advising decision-makers in the party?

Galbraith: The Democrats need to present a clear alternative to Bush's failed policy, and not just criticize. The Bush strategy in Iraq is based on illusions and wishes; the Democratic strategy should be realistic. The starting point is recognizing that Iraq has broken up, and then working with the constituent components. Both Kurdistan and Iraq's south are stable, and there is no need for coalition forces to provide security in either place. The U.S. should reduce its footprint in the Sunni Arab areas and focus on developing a Sunni Arab force that is willing and able to take on the insurgents. Because of the danger that terrorists might use the Sunni areas to stage attacks outside Iraq, the U.S. cannot withdraw completely from the country. But, we can reduce our forces quickly, keeping a rapid-reaction force in Kurdistan which is the one place in Iraq where we are welcome. We also need to step up our diplomacy in working to resolve issues--like Kirkuk--that could intensify Iraq's civil war.

Reason: Is Iraq better off today than it was under Saddam Hussein?

Galbraith: Yes. It is important to remember how cruel Saddam's regime was. Because Iraq is now free, the violence is constantly in the news; but over the past 35 years Saddam's henchmen murdered more than 500,000 Iraqis, with the world knowing little about it and remaining, alas, largely indifferent.

Reason: Finally, do you have any confidence that the Arab states might find an independent solution to the Iraqi crisis? If not, where do the Arabs come into any solution?

Galbraith: Within Iraq, the reputation of the Arab world suffers from the past silence of Arab countries when Saddam Hussein slaughtered Shiites and Kurds. Many Shiites and Kurds believe the Arab League favors Sunni Arabs, and it will be hard for the Arab states to overcome this legacy of mistrust. The recent Cairo conference on reconciliation was, however, a good first step. Perhaps the most useful thing the Arab world could do is to train a Sunni Arab military force that can take on the insurgents and terrorists.

Reason contributing editor Michael Young is opinion editor at the Daily Star newspaper in Beirut.

Why should we split Iraq?

Because of recent talks to put a time table on our troops in Iraq, mounting political pressure, and President Bush's recent decline in popularity, it is undeniable the president will remove military support from Iraq much sooner than expected and needed. What we as Americans have failed to acknowledge is the right solution. Iraq must be split into two separate countries. This is not a new idea; experts for years have proclaimed this solution and believe it is inevitable.

Here are few reasons:

1. An Arab culture that has created and taught Arab nationalism for centuries and has given birth to many leaders like Saddam Hussein, cannot be changed to democracy overnight. The heroes of Arab nationalism, like Saddam Hussein and Gamal abd-al-Nasser, failed to accomplish their goal of unifying the Arab world and setting Palestine free. Once Anwar Sadat and Israel started on the road to peace, the idea of utopian Arab nationalism evaporated. That is when Islam fundamentals breed new heroes like Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahari to fill the void created by the fall of Arab Nationalism. With a promise of uniting the Islam world (i.e. the Arab world), regaining Palestine, and eradicating the evil empire, U.S. religion can be a dangerous tool in the hands of the wrong people. While operating under the Islam umbrella, the Islamic radicals have fooled uneducated non Arab Muslim groups like Ansar Al-Islam into helping them with their terrorizing campaign to unify the Arab world. Arab nationalism and Islamo fascism may be different in ideology but their objectives are the same. Like Martin Kramer said, "Islamism is now what Arab nationalism was then". In Iraq we see the two main factions that use Islam religion to push their own agendas. These factions are Shiites and Sunnis. Shiites embody Iran's side of Islam religion, which is nothing but hate toward the west, primarily the U.S. and Israel. In fact, if you go to Baghdad today you get a sense that you are in Iran with Ayatollah pictures hanging on the walls every where. I am sure this is the group that will take over Iraq once our military leaves.

The other faction that uses the Islam religion to further its own agenda is the Sunnis. The Sunnis are nothing but the leftover hooligans from Saddam's Arab nationalist terrorist group. We have seen this through the mass graves of poor innocent Kurdish women and children from Saddam Hussein's Anfal campaign. The Sunnis used religion to validate their genocide of the Kurds. Today, we see them car bombing, kidnapping and beheading innocent missionaries and truck drivers. These are the groups we are trying to democratize.

If we hand Iraq over to these Islamist groups, we are fooling ourselves to believe we are leaving Iraq in the hands of democracy. Martin Kramer says, "So smart people, many of them with experience "handling" Islamists, have been wrong about them time and again. They have told us they know how to talk to Islamists, how to channel them away from violence, how to find common ground. And leaders, governments, and everyday people have paid the price for their errors. It has been the worst precisely in places where Islamists were given the most space to organize, preach, plan, and operate."

If we leave Iraq the way it is, and do not acknowledge Kurdish independence, it would be like subjecting those we liberated (the Kurds) from one horrendous dictator to another. In this process we would leave Iraq without accomplishing one single goal. At the same time, we will have formed a state that will breed terrorists like rabbits for decades to come resulting in repugnant consequences for rest of the free world.

2.Turkey, we are told, is the other reason for not supporting an independent Kurdistan. The belief in Washington is that we might alienate Turkey as an ally. In my opinion, this is the most mind-boggling reason of all. It would be easier to transform Turkey than try to change Iraq into a Democratic state. It is not only in Turkey's best interest to adapt and transform, but also it is more probable. Turkey benefits politically and economically by civilizing its human rite record regarding the Kurds. The Turkish economy and financial system are joined to rest of Europe and cannot afford to be isolated from the rest of the world. At the same time, I do not believe that Turkey would like to see another Islamic fundamentalism regime become its neighbor.

3. We should ask ourselves when was the last time we saw an American so zealously greeted, embraced openly and welcomed in any part of the world except in two Israel and Kurdistan. Even when the Kurds disagreed with the policies of U.S. representatives, they never threw a stone at an American soldier or burned American flag. Breemaer was the best example of that even though most of his policies sided with Arabs in Iraq. The Kurds never lost their patience and stood by U.S. Today, when an American soldier needs a vacation from the rat race in the south, he goes to Kurdistan. He knows he is safe and appreciated and treated as a liberator in Kurdistan.

If you go to a Kurdish barbershop, restaurant or home what you will see on the wall is a picture of President Bush next to somebody's loved one who lost their life fighting Saddam and his thugs. Where else in the world do you see that much respect, love and adulation toward Americans?

4. If we look at independent Kurdistan from a strategic point of view, we find that U.S. and the Kurds have the same interest. Arabism and Islamo fascism are both enemies of U. S. and Kurds. In fact, more so now since the Kurds have so emphatically supported the west. Most of the Arab world considers the Kurdish people traders. Kurds are a small minority compare to their surrounding enemies. They would not stand a chance alone should U. S. leave without supporting an independent Kurdistan. By supporting independent Kurdistan, we could set a military base in an environment that is friendly and conducive to U.S. A military base could keep an eye on all terrorist movements in Middle East and closely monitor those countries like Iran and Syria that supply those terror groups. Most every Kurd supports this idea. An article written by Babak Dehghanpisheh and Christopher Dickey in Newsweek says, "Top Kurdish officials have practically begged the U.S. military to make itself at home in their land." Abdel Beg Perwani, a Kurdish member of Iraq's Parliament and deputy head of the defense committee said, "I do not ask that Americans build bases in Kurdistan--I demand it."

In his article "What are We Holding to Together?" Peter W. Glbraith writes, "Iraq's Kurds, Shiites and Sunni Arabs do not share the common values and aspirations that are essential to building a unified state. The country's Kurds are avowedly secular and among the most pro-American people in the world. Almost unanimously they want nothing to do with Iraq."

Let us not squander this historic opportunity! We have come too far and sacrificed too much to come way empty handed. Let's hope that our leaders have learned a lesson from Afghanistan. Martin Kramer says, 'The partnership between U.S. engagement with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets created a false impression among many Americans that the Jihadists were our SOBs. The failure to plot their trajectory has left the door open to the first World Trade Center bombing, and them 9/11

We have two choices either we can leave Iraq intact and hand it over to pro Iranian Shiets group or split Iraq into two countries and gain the Kurds as essential allies.

Comment: Why should we split Iraq

Comments on article: "Why should we split Iraq" written by Ardalan Hardi, KurdishMedia.com, 09 January 2006.

Iraq is not a legitimate country; it is the result of botched colonialism.

Iraq is three different countries, three different peoples. Had the original Treaty of Sevres been observed, the current problems would not exist today, there would have been a long-established Kurdish state and Turkey would have had to accept it at the time it was created. Britain, France, Russia, and America (despite its absence on the Lausanne signing) must accept responsibility for the rise of dictatorship in Iraq. The USA technically does not recognise the current borders of Turkey in a legal sense as America was not a signatory to the Lausanne treaty which established those borders.

I am grateful to Mr Hardi who mentioned Anfal because all we seem to hear about in the UK is Halabja. It is important that the world sees Halabja as simply the prelude to the Anfal campaign. In numerical terms it is important that the world knows the facts of Anfal, it was ethnic cleansing. Let's not focus just on Halabja, one event of Anfal, and ignore the greater disaster purely because it suits politicians and support group leaders in Britain to focus on one event. Halabja was a part of a greater evil: Anfal, a Kurdish holocaust.

And I want the world to stop ignoring the Kurdish people in Turkey. When 3000 villages are destroyed without international protest, the American and British governments must be looking the other way and allowing their "allies" to do as they please. Only in the year 2002 did they decriminalise the beautiful Kurdish language in Turkey, a sweetener to convince the European Union that Turkey was a democracy. I benefited directly because I was in Diyarbakir (Amed) at the time and I speak no Turkish, so I was relieved to be able to speak Kurdish to my friends without being arrested.

The world to stop ignoring the Kurdish people in Syria where Newroz, Kurdish New Year, celebrations last year turned into a Syrian army machine gun slaughter of Kurds in a football stadium because they were also celebrating the limited independence of their Kurdish brothers in Iraq.

The world to stop ignoring the Kurdish people in Iran who are living under an Islamic dictatorship which is not of their culture but was foisted upon them by that absurd treaty signed in Lausanne in 1923 and the subsequent mishandling of Iran by the USA and Britain ever since.

There is only one answer to the problems of the area, an independent Kurdish state. Everyone knows it is only a matter of time before the USA confronts Iran (nuclear issues) and Syria (Rafiq Hariri to begin with).

The Kurdish state will, if managed correctly by Kurdish leaders, absorb west and east Kurdistan in the chaos that is to come over the next ten years, but I do have serious doubts about your current leaders' abilities.

When it comes to Turkey the situation is somewhat more complicated due to Turkey's membership of NATO and future membership of the European Union.

The outlook for Northern Kurdistan is not so bad however. At some point Turkey will have to face the EU and explain why a writer like Orhan Pamuk is facing jail simply because he told the truth about the Turkish state killing Armenians and Kurds. The Turkish government will, in the next few years, give way to anything the EU wants because it realises the Turkish economy is bankrupt. This will then provoke the Turkish military to make its move. In 1980 the Turkish people voted democratically for an Islamic Party to form Turkey's government but the army stepped in and removed it from power. With Europe providing the money to support the Turkish economy the military will lose its power.

In 2003 Kurdish friends were worried about Turkish tanks going into South Kurdistan and I replied "They have the petrol and the money to get the tanks into South Kurdistan but they don't have the petrol or the money to get them out again." This will be the case in the future but I also see a need for a political settlement with the Turks and I think further conflict there serves no useful purpose, we simply end up with more dead boys, Turkish and Kurdish, and God sees no difference between Turk and Kurd. I have Turkish friends and I know Turkish boys who are in the army because they have to be, I am not anti-Turkish, I love Turkey, but I am pro-Kurdish.

Kamal Attaturk may have been the scourge of the Armenians and the Kurds but he was a great leader for the Turkish people, he overcame their clan system, necessary for forming a nation. The Kurdish people need a leader like Attaturk, at the moment your leaders seem bound to the clan system and their own power bases, and I am deeply concerned to hear news reports that political dissenters are being imprisoned in Howler.

Mr Barzani and Mr Talabani, please be the leaders your people deserve, forget the clans, forget your own positions, think of one thing and one thing only: a free united Kurdistan. Then you will be true leaders for the greater Kurdish nation.

In The Name Of Great Kurdistan .

TURKOCRATS AND DEMOCRACY .

In the beginning of 1980s , for fulfillment of my quarter-century research project on KURD BIBLIOGRAPHY , I spent some months in Turkey , to implement the respective field work on said study , by using Turkish libraries and scientific centers .

But , unfortunately in Turkey , my futile search for Kurdish books or any book about Kurds and/or Kurdistan , resembled looking for Prophet Suleiman's Small Carpet , which is a super mythological mirage and is too far from realization .

Consequently , neither I found any trace of 20 million Kurds , nor I saw the name of vast Kurdistan region , in any Turkish books , magazines , periodicals , newspapers etc , except the famous forged term of mountainous Turks ". Of course , in such drastic circumstances , finding any book in Kurdish language , was completely out of question So , my mission there , resulted in nothing , except getting some terrible memories .

One day , I was dining at a Kebab House , in Aksaray quarter , at Istanbul . The waiter came to me curiously . While getting the meal order from me , he asked : " From where are you ? " . I answered : " I am a Kurd , from Iranian part of occupied Kurdistan " . He continued anxiously : "Keep silent , term KURD is a political violation of Turkish law ; you may be prosecuted for this offense severely . You shall not pronounce word { KURD } at all " .

I was quite frustrated , because anyway I was a Kurd and I could not disguise my real identity . Noticing my surprise , he continued : " Here if you claim , that you are a Kurd , even you may jeopardize your life . Then , in order to convince me , that he is right in his approach , he related the following real , but strange story for me :

As a Kurd , I was living at a remote village , in Dyarbakir { AMED } district in Turkey . One day , when my father was died , we began to mourn for him . At the funeral service of my father , two Turkish gendarmes came to me in an angry manner and wanted me to pay a certain amount of Turkish Lira to them as a penalty . I asked them : " Why you fine me and for what offense ? " . They answered : " For weeping in Kurdish language for your dead father !!! " .

I protested against their command and told them , that I can not speak Turkish at all , so how can I weep in Turkish . They said : " we will teach you how to weep for your deceased father in Turkish language and make your Turkish lamentations properly , after payment of your respective fine " . And they did it exactly .

Really , when in this days , at the beginning of third millennium , we hear that Turkish leaders are instructing Kurdistan Regional Government , not to hoist their flag at their own soil in KRG , they protest against USA , on President Masoud Barzani's visit to White House and ask Danish Government , to close Kurdish ROJ TV broadcasting in Denmark , it reminds us of above tragic story of that man who was fined for weeping in Kurdish language , in the death of his deceased father . And Even as it was stated in a forum at ZAGROS TV last night ; pronouncing , writing and hearing of word KURDISTAN , still is strictly forbidden in Turkey !!! .

These are the prototypes of TURKOCRACY OR CENGIZISM behavior , which must be seriously noticed by European Union , United Nations USA Government and world community in General .

In The Name Of Great Kurdistan .

TURKEY'S KURDOPHOBIA IS A MALIGNANT PSYCHOPATHIC COMPLICATION :

H. S. Soran .

Not only some individuals are suffering from physical and mental syndromes , but sometimes tyrant regimes and their obsolete leaders are also chronically infected by heterogeneous viruses , which such complications are considered as a malignant psychopathic ailment .

One of these severe cases , which is considered as a symbolic example of such a terrible disorder , is the chronic Kurdophobia , which is infected the total biological structure , metabolism situation , brain tissues , cardiac system , soul and subsequently the thinking process of Turkish leaders , whom are unjustifiably governing a vast area of Great Kurdistan in Turkey , that is historically owned and populated by approximately 20 million genuine Kurds .

The Turkish Kurdophobia , can be classified in two following principal categories :

1- Actual fear .

2- Hallucination .

Actual fear of Turkish regime , has its roots in an Arabic proverb , which says : { A treacherous person , is afraid } . It means , Turkey's fear from Kurds , is in this fact , that they were and are oppressing the Kurds , in a ferocious manner without discrimination continuously , so always they are afraid of their revenge . Turks' fearing in this respect is quite justifiable and nevertheless , this phobia is bothering their physical life and sleepy conscience persistently , in such a manner , that it has been transformed to the most internal problem of Turkey and a dreadful nightmare .

The hallucineous fear of them , as it appears from its denomination , is quite baseless and unrealistic . This type of Kurdophobia is mainly based on this wrong concept , that if Kurds become independent and powerful , both inside Turkey and outside it, they are a potential danger for Turkey and jeopardize their existence , safety , welfare etc . But according to reliable pages of history and Kurdish behavior/culture records , this anxiety is only a psychopathic hallucination , because Kurds , as ancient and immediate neighbors of Turks , have proved in the long course of their history , that they are fond of democracy , peaceful coexistence , mutual friendship and amity ; and despite numerous instances of Turks' racial cleansing , massacre , torture and discriminations against Kurds , there is no negative record and black point , in the Kurdish side of neighborhood relation and for sure , the history will be repeated . Kurds will not and can not change their behavior , culture and human character , not only towards Turks , but in connection with all their neighbors as well .

Conclusion :

As a Kurd , we respect good neighborhood relation with Turkey's Turks , we are looking for a peaceful coexistence with them ; and in fact we expect same from them , without unjustifiable Kurdophobia and strange hallucinations of their imposed leaders . We must have TURKOPHOBIA .

The fragmentation of Iraq would save us from a civil war

By: Ahmad Zakhoi

Patience for the war has dropped sharply as optimism about the Iraqi elections in December has ebbed and violence against U.S. troops hasn't abated. The calculated outcome of the elections does not guarantee any shift in Iraq's stability. With the highest rate of disapproval at home, the Bush administration envisages mounting pressure to sketch a definite exist strategy for the US troops from Iraq.

By having enticed the Sunni insurgents to chip in the political process, the US was expectant that the ongoing chaos will come to an end or substantially minimized to relieve the gradual abandonment of US troops. On the contrary, if the Sunnis who make up the majority of the rebellion gain substantial power, they could strengthen their cohesion with the terrorist hordes, further broaden the margins of terror campaign and threaten US interests in the region. Hence, it would mean a more deadly war with myriad human casualties for coalition forces.

The victory in Iraq is enormously gainful for US standing and credibility world-wide. Therefore, they are capitalizing on every legitimate or illegitimate practice feasible to secure their opinionated goals.

The Department of Defense has allocated the most of its gigantic resources to overcome the prevailing mess and maintain Iraq's territorial integrity. Iraqi newspapers were disbursed to tout stories written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq and circulate prevarications about the Kurds willing to remain part of Iraq. Dogged with Kurdish strong nationalistic reactions inflaming regional tensions, the US decided to defuse the Kurds tremendous influence by more engaging in talks with Sunni Arabs.

Neither the inclusion of Sunnis in the political course nor the US false advertisements in Iraqi media have been victorious in restoring durable peace and stability for Iraqi population. Most Iraqis share the reciprocal belief that even if the US troops evacuate Iraq, the terrorism and chaos will still remain an epidemic engulfing them.

Sunni Arabs with extensive knowledge of the insurgency believe that troop withdrawal by itself will not halt the violence consuming the country. In interviews conducted by telephone from the United States and in Iraq, political and religious leaders and other prominent Sunni Arabs warned that if a unilateral U.S. withdrawal is not accompanied by other steps, including negotiations with insurgent groups, an all-out civil war between the majority Shiites and the Sunnis could result.

Most elements of the terrorist operation cells are trained and well-resourced before being imported to Iraq through the route of Syrian, Turkish and Iranian boarders. The operational terrorists do not represent the actual components of Iraqi bloc. The only way for the US to win the war is to exert the maximum pressure on adjoining states to cooperate in blocking the infiltration of foreign insurgents into Iraqi soil. The sole inconsistency existing among the sundry ethnic groups is the apportionment of power. For that reason, if Iraq is fragmented into three entities, it would save all Iraqis from being imposed an internecine civil war.

Chaos and disintegration will prevail in Iraq in the near term regardless of what the US does. Centralized secular government under the rule of law was never feasible from the outset. Iraq's diverse, multi-sect society is not capable of it at this time. Some CIA analysts warned Bush of the threat to democracy posed by sectarian hostility early in the game, but they could have gotten a more attentive audience by speaking to a stone wall. Now we have wasted over $300 billion and depleted valuable military resources in a foolish fiasco.

The U.S. wants an Iraq that is not hostile to it, as was Saddam's Iraq. That is why the U.S. removed Saddam. Without assurance that dividing Iraq up sectarianly would not result in any of the sectarian parts being hostile to the U.S., that is not a direction the U.S. should embrace. Of course, the U.S. may not have a choice.