The world according to Baker

Based on what has been leaked of the yet-to-be-published Baker-Hamilton bi-partisan commission report on Iraq, Kurdish rights and Kurdish interests are to be sacrificed once again to appease the terrorists and their allies inside and outside Iraq. In this, Baker is following in the footsteps of callous British imperialists, who created the Iraq problem by creating that artificial patchwork of a country almost a century ago, his mentor Kissinger, and a host of misinformed policy-makers and so-called experts - who are anything but "experts" -- and wimps of all stripes, who were, and continue to be, against Operation Iraqi Freedom because they didn't see Saddam as an "imminent threat," despite all the atrocities he had committed, and who, for some mysterious reasons, invariably side with the enemies of America and Western civilization instead of the friends and allies of America and the West.

(Let us not forget that this is the same Baker who, in order not to offend his Turkish friends, when he stood on the Turkish (Kurdish) side of the border with Iraq (Southern Kurdistan) in the spring of 1991 as the US Secretary of State, talking to a crowd of hungry and frightened Kurdish refugees fleeing Saddam's helicopter gun-ships and his murderous Republican Guards in freezing snow and rain begging him to rescue them and the million-and-a-half other Kurdish refugees from their miserable condition, couldn't find enough sympathy in his heart to take one symbolic step across the artificial border to show his solidarity with them.)

On its surface, the Baker report seems reasonable, for it is reported to propose dividing the country into three federal states: one Shii'i, one Sunni, and one Kurdish. But how the boundaries of these federal states are drawn is a different issue, for, according to the report, Karkuk is to be part of the Sunni state!! That is exactly how the British behaved eighty-five years ago: deciding other peoples' fate as if they were insects and drawing maps and drawing lines through other peoples' land as if they were dealing with their own backyard. Had Baker and his advisers read any history of Karkuk and the region, this "solution" would never have even crossed their mind. The proposed inclusion of Karkuk in a future Sunni federal state is the most outrageous idea since the equally outrageous act of creating Iraq in the first place. It will never see the light of day as long as one Kurd remains alive on the face of the earth.

If the Baker-Hamilton commission's rationale for the inclusion of Karkuk in the proposed Sunni federal state were to allegedly insure its survival economically (the Kurdish federal state's economic survival doesn't enter into the commission's calculations, of course, since the Kurdish people don't matter anyway), then an arrangement could be worked out whereby both the Kurdish and Shii'ite states would share their oil revenues in perpetuity with the Sunni state - assuming reports that the Sunni area, too, is sitting on a sea of oil don't bear out. But the main reason for the commission's outrageous proposal is to appease Turkey and all the other enemies of the Kurds that don't want to see the Kurds in control of Karkuk's oil because that would, in their view, fuel the Kurds' drive towards independence, as if Kurdish independence were a crime! So, for the enemies of the Kurds and those who are trying to appease them, as long as Karkuk's oil is not in Kurdish hands, its rightful owners, it doesn't matter in whose hands it is, including the terrorists and their allies. Did anybody, East or West and in-between, ever raise any objection when the biggest terrorist of them all, Saddam, was controlling that same oil?

Let it be known that according to the population census conducted at the time of the forcible annexation of Kurdistan (so-called northern Iraq) to Iraq in the 1920's, the Arab population in the Karkuk province was under 15%, but because of the successive Iraqi governments' racist policy of moving Kurds out and settling Arabs in the province since the discovery of oil in the 1930's - the policy that reached its height under Saddam's infamous Arabization policy - the Arab population has swelled. Let it also be known that historically and demographically Karkuk has always been part of Kurdistan and this is not difficult to verify, if anyone is interested in finding out the truth, by going back to official documents dating back to the time of the Ottomans and the population censuses prior to Saddam's intense Arabization of the province. That Saddam flooded the province with Arab settlers after kicking out its rightful owners does not make it Arabic or Iraqi unless we believe in the law of the jungle, which says that might makes right.

So, for Baker to offer Karkuk as a gift / bribe to the envisioned Sunni state just to appease the terrorists and their allies throughout the region and beyond is an act very few people would dare to contemplate in the twenty-first century. It is the height of arrogance and ignorance for Baker to act as if Karkuk were his own personal property and was his to give to the gangsters in the neighborhood as a bribe in the hope that it would dissuade them from continuing their terror against America and everything decent in this world. It is laughable also to think that the Kurds would ever accept, under any circumstances, such an outrageous plan.

Had Baker and his "expert" advisers read any history, they would certainly have known that it was the dispute over Karkuk that lead to the collapse of the 1970 agreement between the Kurds and the Bakir-Saddam regime and the resumption of the war in1974. If the Kurds weren't willing to give up any part of Karkuk then, why would they be willing to do so now? As far as the Kurds are concerned, the future of Karkuk is not negotiable and Karkuk is not Baker's or anybody else's personal property to give away; Karkuk is part of Kurdistan and so it will remain!

For the Baker-Hamilton commission to recommend this great injustice and, thereby, squander all the good will that the Kurdish people have towards America is a great disservice to America. America didn't sacrifice some of its bravest men and women to liberate Iraq from one of the worst tyrannies in human history only to compound the injustice that has been the Kurdish people's lot, but to end that injustice. The Baker-Hamilton commission's recommendation is a slap in the face of America and everything it has stood for throughout its history and a repudiation of America's declared goals leading up to the liberation of Iraq.

The Baker-Hamilton commission wants to make sure that the terrorists and their supporters, who have killed over three thousand brave American troops and maimed more than twenty thousand-- not to mention other Coalition troops and many thousand innocent Iraqis - don't lose. If the commission's report is adopted, it means that the killers who want to kick America around will get rewarded by getting what is clearly not theirs while American friends and allies will get robbed of what is rightfully theirs. Americans who have lost sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, and husbands and wives in the cause of freedom and justice must not let this gross injustice stand.

The Kurdish people welcome dividing Iraq into three federal states or, better yet, three independent countries but not at their expense! The US Administration and the American people must not allow, let alone advocate, any diminution of Kurdish rights in their homeland, of which Karkuk is, and must remain, an integral part - "its heart." It behooves America to follow this course not only because it is just and in line with America's historic mission in the world and its long-held tradition, but also because it cannot afford losing one of its very few remaining friends and allies in that vital region of the world.

It is totally impossible to create an Arab state composed of Sunnis and Shiite. Had the Sunnis and Shiite been able to set aside their dissonances, there would have been no inevitability to even split Iraq.

"Stop beating a dead horse"

President Bush is under no illusion that Iraqi sate is a failed experience. He is just trying to avoid taking responsibility for splitting Iraq. If creating is Shiaa state and a small Sunni state is a concern, then the best way to divide Iraq is to create a state composed of Kurds, Turkomans and Christians and another Arab state composed of Sunnis and Shiites. Kurdistan is already a de facto sate and is more than willing to accommodate other oppressed nations and minorities. Kurdistan could share administration power with other minorities and become a symbol of tolerance and fraternity.

Turkey and Syria are already strangled with their Kurdish problem and a Kurdish State can only help them to resolve their issue in a more reasonable and democratic manner vs. the current armed conflict.

Iraq is already a divided country

In order to help Iraq surmount its current crisis, it is necessary to understand one basic fact: The Iraqi state has disintegrated.

Kurdistan in the north is in all regards an independent state with its own elected government, its own army and its own flag. The Iraqi flag is banned and, by Kurdistan law, the Iraqi army cannot enter Kurdistan.

Iraq's Shiite-dominated south is not yet organized as its own state but it is governed separately from Baghdad by Shiite religious parties that enforce an Iranian-style Islamic law through Shiite militias that number in the tens of thousands.

Baghdad is the front line of a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites and is divided between the Sunni west and the Shiite east. The predominantly Sunni centre of Iraq is a battleground between the insurgency and the U.S. military.

Moreover, Iraq's breakup is codified in the Iraqi constitution, a document approved by nearly 80% of the country's voters.

The constitution creates a virtually powerless centre: The government in Baghdad doesn't even have the power to tax the population. The regions, on the other hand, are allowed to have their own armies, and have substantial control over their own oil. Regional laws trump those of the central government on almost all matters.

The Kurds want no part of Iraq, a country they associate with decades of repression and Saddam Hussein's genocide in the 1980s. In January, 2005, Kurdistan voted 98% for independence in a non-binding referendum. Since it is impossible to see how Kurds will ever reconcile to being part of a country they hate, Kurdistan's full independence is a matter of time.

Both Shiites and Sunni Arabs consider themselves Iraqis but have bitterly opposed visions of what Iraq should be. A "unified" Arab Iraq is a formula for endless war. The Shiites are moving forward with plans to form their own region, and it is in the interest of the Sunnis to do the same. Regional self-government -- or, if they so choose, formal independence -- will enable each community to safeguard its own interests and minimize conflict.

Given that Iraqis have themselves effectively endorsed the country's breakup, it makes little sense for the United States to devote vast resources to trying to put it back together.

In circumstances of partition and civil war, President George W. Bush's strategy of building up an Iraqi army and police will never succeed.

Iraqi security forces are either Shiite or Sunni and are therefore partisans in the civil war. Iraq's police include Shiite units that are responsible for the kidnapping, torture and execution of thousands of Sunnis, while Sunni police cooperate with the insurgents or are the insurgents. Most army units owe their loyalty to their ethnic or sectarian communities and not to a national command authority that is itself sectarian or ethnically based.

Building up Iraq's security forces is not a formula for ending the civil war; rather, it is a program to make for more lethal combatants. Building up regional armies, on the other hand, can improve the security situation in that region.

One reason Kurdistan is by far the most stable part of Iraq is that security is entirely in Kurdish hands with no presence of the Iraqi army or police.

Continued on next page

Continued from previous page

Opponents of partition argue it will leave the Sunnis without a share of Iraq's oil wealth. In the interim the Kurds and Shiites have agreed to share oil revenue with the Sunnis, based on their 20% share of Iraq's population. (This may not placate the Sunnis as this would represent a sharp drop from 75% of the revenues they received in Saddam's time.)

Further, there probably is oil in Sunni areas, as well. Much of Iraq's territory has not been explored, and there just hasn't been much exploration in the Sunni areas. That will change in coming years, especially if the security situation improves. Once the Sunnis have their own oil supply, it won't be necessary to subsidize them with oil wealth from the Shiite south and the Kurdish north.

Accepting the reality of Iraq's breakup also provides a road map for the United States and its coalition partners to leave the country. The only reason to be in the Shiite south would be to dismantle the Shiite theocracies that run the region, disband the militias that enforce an Iranian-style Islamic law, and to counter Iran's influence.

Since Mr. Bush has no intention of doing any of these things, there is no purpose to a continued presence there. We should also withdraw from Baghdad unless we are willing to send in many more troops and use them as police to contain the Sunni-Shiite civil war, steps that Mr. Bush is not now considering.

The United States has one overriding and achievable interest in Iraq: preventing al-Qaeda from establishing a secure base in the Sunni Arab region from which it could attack the West.

The current strategy for fighting al-Qaeda and its terrorist allies has not worked because it involves using mostly Shiite troops to fight in the Sunni areas where al-Qaeda operates.

A Sunni region with its own army has a better chance of containing al-Qaeda, but if they don't, the United States should keep a small force in Kurdistan as an insurance policy. Alone among Iraq's peoples, the Kurds are pro-American and their army would be a useful ally if we needed to intervene against al-Qaeda.

When it ousted Saddam, the United States broke up Iraq, a country that had been kept together only through brutal force. It cannot recreate Iraq, nor is there any interest served by trying to do so.

Dear people of Kurdistan,

We stress our strong support for the execution of Article 140 in order to become a message for those who stand against its execution. We, the Turkumani people are strongly against any Turkish military intervention into Kurdistan and would prefer to live with the peaceful people of Kurdistan in case of any secession. An independent Kurdistan is the legitinate right of Kurdish people.

Waleed Sharika
Secretary Generalof Turkumani Akha'a Party

By partitioning Iraq, governments of Syria and Turkey will be destabilized and enfeebled. The existing ethnic, religious minorities shall rise up and ask for the creation of same-type representative government system. Dictatorship will be ended and political and administrative power shall be distributed. And this is what exactly what the US is seeking. Democratization for the entire Middle East. Therefore, the US would not need to deal with one single party or individual.

The '3 Iraqs' solution

It appears now that even the Bush administration is looking for a way to honorably withdraw from Iraq. With midterm elections approaching, key figures in both major U.S. political parties are losing faith in the "stay the course" policy and are looking for a fast way out.

The major media are once again floating a trial balloon for a liberal left idea. They are increasingly pounding away at the concept of creating a kind of "federal Iraq." This is a code phrase for dividing Iraq into three autonomous zones.
Hal Lindsey

Taking into account the three major population groups in Iraq, the proposed divisions would include the Kurdish Zone in the north, the Shiites in the south, and the Sunnis in the center of the country.

When I first heard it, I even entertained the idea for a brief moment. But after reflecting on the history of this area, I quickly changed my mind. When the vast Ottoman Turkish Empire was defeated in World War I, none of the present Muslim nations existed.

The Ottomans, who ruled that part of the world for four centuries, systematically destroyed national entities and made them regions under the direct control of Istanbul.

The conquering British and French created the present nations and their borders. Iraq did not even exist until Winston Churchill took a map and with his pen drew its present borders.

The same thing was done for most of the Middle East. Nations were created with a stroke of a pen. The chaotic aftermath illustrates what happens when the West interjects its ideas into Middle East problems without understanding the peculiar nature of each area and how important the Muslim sects are that inhabit them.

They were almost totally ignorant of 1) the ancient tribal homelands and the fierce rivalry between certain tribes, and 2) the areas that were traditionally controlled by certain sects of Islam and just how important that control is.

When Churchill casually sketched the borders of the new nation of Iraq, he guaranteed that there would be problems that could only be contained by a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein.

Unwittingly, Churchill forced together into one entity the Kurds, whom everyone hated, the Sunni sect, which was a minority in the area, and the majority Shiite sect.

The Shiites' holiest shrines were included, but land that had traditionally been part of the old nation was placed into another new nation called Kuwait.

Lebanon had been part of pre-Ottoman Syria, but the French carved it out separately.

Trans-Jordan, which became the Kingdom of Jordan under a British fiat, was also artificially created by the stroke of a pen. In fact, at the Conference of San Remo in 1922, the League of Nations originally mandated Trans-Jordan to be part of a Jewish homeland.

But Israel surrendered it so that the original inhabitants of the territory of Palestine would have a homeland.

But let's get back to the Iraq problem. The situation as it exists today in Iraq cannot be solved by another imposition of Western stupidity. Sixty-two percent of the Iraqi population is Shiite. The Sunnis make up about 30 percent and the Kurds about 8 percent.

If there is, indeed, a division into three separate states, this is what will happen. The Shiites are a fundamentalist sect of Islam and recognize the Ayatollah of Iran as their spiritual leader. They will immediately reject American- imposed democracy and become inseparably aligned with Iran.

The Sunnis will be forced into an alignment with Sunni Syria for self-protection.

The Kurds appreciate the United States and would remain separate and continue to be our friends. The only problem is that Turkey, Syria and Iran hate the Kurds. Turkey would break relations with us for creating a Kurdish state. It would demand that we remove our extremely vital military bases from Turkish soil.

That would leave the U.S. with two friends in the Middle East that are hated by everyone - Israel and Kurdistan.

A further complication that would surely cause conflict is the fact that almost all of Iraq's oil is in the Shiite and Kurdish areas. There's not much chance of a workable arrangement whereby the Shiites and the Kurds would share their wealth with the Sunnis. Remember, Saddam Hussein was Sunni, and he and his sect inflicted unspeakable suffering on the Shiites and Kurds.

But now, the Shiite-dominated Iraqi Parliament has approved the idea of a three-state Iraq, and the idea is developing legs.

To make matters worse, former Secretary of State James Baker has been leading a panel called the Iraq Survey Group. This committee has been studying the situation and is due to hand the White House just such a recommendation following the elections.

Naturally, the Iraqi Sunnis, responsible for most of the insurgent violence, oppose the plan. As I said, most of the oil is in the Shia and Kurdish Zones.

So if the plan goes forward, the threatened Sunnis will start a civil war. But the Kurds and the Shiites suggest that if the plan doesn't go forward, they will start a civil war. The only way to hold Iraq together would be for the U.S. to impose a ruthless occupation, which we will not do.

The actions of the Western powers, taken decades ago with total ignorance of the area's history, are now insoluble - just as the Bible prophets predicted they would be in the "last days." But these same prophets predicted that this would pave the way for a person of enormous powers who is waiting in the wings to be unveiled - he is called "the anti-Christ." The world is just about ready to embrace him

Iraqi Kurds Deserve Independence

The Kurds in Iraq appear to be marching toward independence, albeit, they are constitutionally autonomous at this time, and are opting for a federalized Iraq. Should the Kurds decide to declare their independence from Iraq, they will deserve international (and U.S.) recognition and support.

For many years now, I have been asking myself, and especially political figures, why is it that 5.1 million stateless Palestinian Arabs deserve statehood, while 29,360,000 stateless Kurds have been denied the same privilege?

Cynically speaking, it appears as if the involvement of Jews in the conflict with the Palestinian Arabs, pervasive anti-Semitism in Europe and elsewhere, and the influence of oil rich Arab states on behalf of the Palestinian Arabs has elevated the Palestinian cause above that of the Kurds, and the Tibetans (who continue to be occupied and oppressed by China).

Amidst the turmoil and violence Iraq has experienced since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and his Baathist regime, Iraqi Kurdistan seems to be a relative island of tranquility and progress. Fighting between the Kurdish factions of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) led by Jalal Talabani (currently the President of Iraq) and the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) led by Massoud Barzani came to an end in the 1990s.

In January 2006, the two parties agreed to unify their separate governments. On May 7, 2006, the 111-member National Kurdistan Council, the Kurdish Parliament, voted unanimously in favor of a unified government. Barzani was elected as president of the region. Under the unification agreement, both the president and the prime minister will be from the KDP while their deputies and the speaker of the parliament will be from the PUK.

It is in the areas under Kurdish control that elements of a modern state can be observed: defined borders, an elected parliament, a government, common language and culture, a flag, a capital (Erbil), a reasonably modern army with command and control, diplomatic and consular representations by and in Kurdistan, an international airport, a bustling economy, and above all, Iraqi Kurdistan has a strong sense of identity.

Unlike most other parts of Iraq or the Arab Middle East, Kurdistan is far more democratic, secular and moderately Islamic. Women participate in national life, and civil society is vibrant. The Kurdish parliament has recently outlawed polygamy - a practice common throughout the Arab world. The Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) has also adopted English as its second language, after Kurdish, and relegated Arabic to third place. Since 1991 many of its youngsters have grown up speaking only Kurdish and, increasingly, fewer and fewer Kurds speak Arabic.

British and French machinations prevented the establishment of an independent Kurdish state following WWI and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The Treaty of Sevres in 1920, considered the creation of a Kurdish state, however France and Britain divided Ottoman Kurdistan between Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. It was formalized under the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.

The neighboring states with large Kurdish minorities, and Turkey in particular, oppose Kurdish independence. Turkey fears that its 15 million Kurds might want to join an independent Iraqi Kurdistan. Syria's 1.5 million Kurds, located in Northeastern Syria adjacent to Iraqi Kurdistan, have been "ethnically cleansed" by the Baathist regime of the Assads in Damascus. Arabs have been sent by Damascus to the Hasakeh Kurdish province after the discovery of oil, displacing the native Kurds. Iran's 6 million Kurds are largely contiguous to Iraqi Kurdistan, and Tehran's mullahs are not comfortable with an independent Kurdish state; they prefer a Shiite-led unitary government in Baghdad they can control.
The Arab Sunni Saddamites are fiercely opposed to an independent Kurdistan, federalized Iraq, or even an autonomous Kurdish region, while the neighboring Arab states (and the Arab League) fear the creation of another non-Arab state in the region.

Considering the persecution and genocide Kurds suffered under Saddam Hussein and the Baath party, Iraqi Kurds have more than a legitimate claim to independence. Saddam's gassing of the Kurdish village of Halabja in 1988, murdering 5,000 men, women and children immediately, and 12,000 in the next three days, makes Kurdish demands for separation from Arab Iraq understandable. The Bush Sr. administration encouraged the Kurds to rebel against Saddam, and when they did, the U.S. abandoned them to Saddam's brutality, resulting in the killing of thousands and the displacing of many more thousands of Kurds. The U.S. is morally obligated to support Kurdish choices, particularly since the Kurds are America's best friend in Iraq.

The Kurdish Regional Government has presented its demands to the Iraqi government, which include adding the city Kirkuk (an oil producing city) to its region and other areas with a Kurdish majority, as a condition for its remaining part of Iraq. If, however, a civil war between Sunnis and Shia in Iraq should flare up, the Kurds have declared that they might consider secession. Additionally, the Kurds will bolt out of Iraq should it be dominated by an Islamist government.

The largest obstacle to Kurdish independence is Turkey's threat to close its border and airspace to Iraqi Kurdistan, thus preventing the flow of trade and commerce. It is America's role (since the U.N. will not do it) to pressure Turkey to allow self-determination for the Kurds, just as it has pressured Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians. If America is honest in its belief in self-determination for all people, than the Kurds, much more than the Palestinians, deserve their independence. An independent Kurdish State and a similar independent Shia and Sunni states in Iraq, might be America's best exit policy for an artificial state (Iraq) created by British colonial and commercial ambitions.

A divided Iraq - now is the time

I was happy to see tonight a discussion on the BBC's Newsnight programme that considered the possibility of the break-up of the Iraqi state as a possible solution for the very first time.

It is easy for Westerners, such as myself, to assume that all Middle-Eastern nations have the same culture, the same religion, everyone being an Arab. I think many people in the West make such assumptions and that is why they think Syria or Iran could "help" with the problems in what we call Iraq.

I was luckier than most, because I got the opportunity to meet many Iranians, Arabs, and got the chance to live with the Kurdish community in Hull for six years. Because of this experience I can see how different Kurdish, Iranian and Arab cultures are, most in the West cannot. Hell, it is possible to see the difference between Iraqi Arab and Egyptian Arab cultures.

Many British and American government officials did not have the opportunity I received, they do not understand the people in the region at all. No wonder they do not appear to know what they are doing.

Now, hopefully, James Baker's report to President Bush will contain a reference to what everyone who writes on this website believes: Iraq is three nations, and advise separation.

Given the cultural and ethnic gulf between Kurdish, Arab and Farsi, it is now correct that each be recognised as independent, equal and deserving of the support of the international community. In short, the first Kurdish state should be acknowledged by the United Nations. Now is the time.

Kurds should never have been put in this position as a people; Kurds should have always been a nation.

Nonstarter", please start!

Every evidence hints toward spread of freedom in the Middle East, despite the efforts of dark forces to turn the clock back! Although dividing Iraq would be advantageous for all, the US administration remains resistant to accept this inevitable starting point of reform in the Middle East and calls partition a "nonstarter". Maybe the current Republican administration is exhausted with making any further drastic changes and is waiting for a Democrat to deal with their angry friends from the past! I believe partition is a reasonable and progressive solution at this stage; it is just a matter of time, and the sooner the better.

As opposed to current unstable union based on force, partition would expedite the creation of a democratic union based on free will in the future. Iraqi Shiites would soon unite with their Iranian supporters and have a bigger share of power that is dominated by Sunnis now. Iraqi Sunnis would grow and learn to survive without oil and be the first Sunni Arab nation not ruled by a dictator; they would join Syrian people and bring them a taste of democracy later. Turkey will be less threatened by the spread of fundamentalism, by having a buffering secular state in its Southeastern border. The people in the region would learn that freedom to choose is a better way toward development, prosperity, and stability and not the size of a country or a dominating sect or ethnic group.

After the partition, coalition forces will be able to move their innocent soldiers to the welcoming Kurdistan region and disturbed one to rehabilitation centers. Israel will be pleased to have at least a non-threatening Kurdistan state in the neighborhood. US could prove the claim that their main purpose was promoting human rights by liberating at least one part of Kurdistan. Kurds of all countries would have the chance to send their sons and daughter to the liberated part of Kurdistan, so they become educated in their native language and ready to liberate other part of their homeland. Spread of freedom would lead to trust, investment, development, equality, and voluntary union at least for economic reasons as it is the case in Europe now.

Although it will be a win-win solution for all, the Kurds might be the main winner of the partition of Iraq. If it was any other ethnic group, they would have declared independence by now. Unfortunately decades of indoctrination that they are not ready to govern themselves and they are better off to serve other states, has taken away the confidence of many Kurdish leaders. They also seem to worry too much for the destiny of their masters and feel guilty to leave them alone. They seem to be very caring and might tell themselves "my goodness what will happen to our Arab, Turkish, Persian, European, and American friends if we declare independence; they might starve without us".

I would like to reassure our Kurdish leaders who dream of a Nobel Peace Prize, that their friends will do just fine, if Kurds leave them alone and declare independence. Those friends are fortunate enough to have everything they need including oil, many factories, roads, banks, hospitals, and commercial, educational, and cultural centers that are still lacking in Kurdistan. Despite lacking those infrastructures, Kurdistan is still wealthier and more able to sustain itself compare to many members of the United Nations. Like the US, other members of the UN will continue to see the Kurdish legitimate right as a "nonstarter" unless the Kurds become a "starter" and declare independence! Please move on, free people are with you!

Dr. Artin maintains the website: www.art-in-mind.net. He is a member of www.kncna.org and www.kaes.us.,/i>

Kurdistan - The Quest for Statehood

This Kurdish people was created as
Kurdish by Allah ...The Arab people is part of the Arab nation
and the Kurdish people is part of the Kurdish nation...Jalal Talabani [1]

Introduction

The Kurds are prone to repeating the mantra that they are the largest nation in the Middle East without a state, though not for lack of trying, fighting, and sacrificing. After decades of struggle, the Iraqi Kurds appear to be finally in a position to live in peace and prosperity within the safe boundaries of Iraqi Kurdistan, whether it is a de facto state, a de jure state, or just simply a broadly autonomous "federated region" within the greater federation of Iraq. In the words of MEMRI's Baghdad analysts, the Kurds are "the luckiest horse likely to collect the prizes of the American war to bring down the Saddam regime," and it is among the Kurdish people that the Americans are most likely to find true friends and allies.

The rest of the Iraqi provinces or governorates, mired in terrorism and sectarian violence, envy Kurdistan. It is a magnet for Iraqis seeking work or seeking a safe environment. It is also a model for the Iraqi Shi'a in the central and southern parts of Iraq who are striving against heavy odds to create similar federated entities for themselves.

The Kurds have put in place all the ingredients of a modern state - reasonably well-defined borders, common language and culture, a modern army subject to command and control, a flag, an elected parliament, a government, diplomatic/consular representations by and in Kurdistan, international airports, a bustling economy, and, above all, national identity and a strong sense of accomplishment. But, for now, sovereign Kurdistan is not a reality, and the cause of Kurdish self-determination has many opponents.

Historical Background

The Kurds were conquered by the Arabs in the seventh century and have since lived under the rule of others, including the Ottoman Empire from the 13th century to the early part of the 20th century. With the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after WWI, the victorious powers negotiated, with Turkey, the Treaty of Sevres, which was signed on August 10, 1920. Under Article 62 of the Treaty, the entire Kurdish population, including the parts now residing in Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria, was to be granted political autonomy. Article 63 stipulated that "The Turkish Government hereby agrees to accept and execute the decisions... mentioned in article 62 within three months..." [2]

The post-imperial Turkish government under Mustapha Kemal (Ataturk) rejected the Treaty of Sevres because of provisions it found unacceptable. A new round of negotiations started, culminating in the Treaty of Lausanne of July 24, 1923. Turkey was no longer obligated to grant the Kurds autonomy. The treaty divided the Kurdish region among Turkey, Iraq, and Syria, and it has remained divided since.

The Kurds of Iraq have had their share of troubles and disappointments with the various governments of Iraq since the monarchy was established in 1922 with the help of the British government. These troubles reached their zenith under the Saddam regime which used chemical weapons and mass deportations to suppress Kurdish national aspirations. In 1991, encouraged by the United States, the Kurds, like the Shi'a in southern Iraq, rose up against the Saddam regime, only to be crushed by it when the United States left both the Kurds and the Shi'a to their own devices. Then, with public pressure mounting in favor of the Kurds, the U.S. and Britain established a no-fly zone for Iraqi planes over Iraqi Kurdistan. This was a turning point in the history of modern Iraqi Kurdistan.

The no-fly zone was followed in 1996 with 13 percent of oil revenues earmarked for the "Northern Provinces" [i.e., Kurdistan] from the proceeds of the Oil for Food Program. This turned Kurdistan into an increasingly prosperous part of Iraq, even while the rest of the country was descending into poverty.

The progress that was made in Iraqi Kurdistan did not go unnoticed in the rest of Saddam-controlled Iraq, thanks to an uncommonly vivid and detailed report on the situation of Kurdistan that was published in the former Iraqi daily Babil, owned by Saddam's son Uday. In the report from Kurdistan, Babil's reporter made these observations:

This is supposedly an Iraqi land, but no one utters the name 'Iraq'... Here they use cellular phones called kurdistell, they watch a Kurdish TV... Its people argue that they enjoy freedom unknown to neighboring countries. Unbelievable changes have taken place here. Imagine: Most of the children born after 1991 do not speak Arabic... The surrounding neighboring countries of Syria, Turkey, and Iran do not wish to see [Kurdistan] as a model for their minorities, even though they represent 23 million people, the largest group without a state in the Middle East." [3]

The fall of Saddam signaled the end of oppression of the Kurds and lifted their spirits. But the Kurds soon discovered that most of the Iraqi new political leaders, who only a short while earlier, while serving in the opposition, had promised to support Kurdish national aspirations, were now beginning to renege on old promises. The tone had changed. Iraqi nationalism had quickly dominated the political discourse in Iraq, and the Arab-Kurdish alliance had begun to fray. Kirkuk, Iraqi leaders argued, was to remain an Iraqi city; the whole issue of federalism, which had been one of the cornerstones of the new constitution promulgated on December 15, 2005, was seen as a Kurdish ploy that needed to be brought under the demands of multiple revisions. Kurdish hopes for national reconciliation and for a full Iraqi recognition of their unique status as a federated region within a unified Iraq were frustrated, and there was even a sense of betrayal. Soon, voices began to be heard calling for secession from Iraq and the establishment of a sovereign Kurdistan. Thus, taking advantage of the current turmoil and uncertainty in Iraq, the Kurds have moved forward in cementing the foundations of their federated status - a fait accompli that will be next to impossible for any future centrally oriented Iraqi government to undo.

Baghdad and Erbil - Violence vs. Construction

More than a decade after the visit of Babil's reporter to Kurdistan (endnote 3), an Iraqi-born reporter from the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat described the dramatic contrast between Baghdad and Erbil, the capital of Kurdistan, as he had viewed both from an airplane window. When he approached Baghdad, his birthplace, it looked desolate, overwhelmed by garbage accumulating everywhere, and covered by a dusty sky often mixed with the smoke of gunpowder.

Three weeks later, as he flew from Baghdad to Erbil, he was struck by the sight of cranes around the Erbil International Airport engaged in the construction of "a forest of residential and commercial buildings." At the airport, a big sign welcomes the passengers in three languages: Kurdish, Arabic, and English. The airport itself is undergoing a major expansion to facilitate the landing of the largest aircrafts, both civilian and military. Not far from the airport there is an area surrounded by a colorful fence, where 1200 villas are being built at prices ranging from $150,000 to $700,000 per unit.

A significant indicator of the economic situation in the two cities is that while unemployment is about 60 percent in Baghdad, in Kurdistan there is a shortage of labor. Not surprising there is a flow of Iraqi professionals and workers from the central and southern provinces in Iraq into Kurdistan, seeking employment opportunities and personal safety. [4]

Massive construction is also going on in Suleimaniya, where just one of the construction companies from the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait is investing up to $60 million to construct a shopping mall, a four-star hotel, and five high-rise commercial buildings. [5]

The Unified Kurdistan Government

For almost 30 years, Kurdistan was run by two parallel governments, one headquartered in Sulaymaniya under the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) headed by Jalal Talabani and the other headquartered in Erbil under the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP), headed by Mas'oud Barzani. The relationships between the two governments and their leaders were often hostile, resulting in a military conflict in the mid-1970s that was brought to an end by the Clinton administration. In January 2006 the two governments agreed to unify, and on May 7 the 111-member National Kurdistan Council (Parliament) voted unanimously in favor of a unified government made up of 27 ministries and 40 ministers, with the two major political parties KDP and PUK each controlling 11 ministries. The five remaining ministries were assigned to smaller political parties. Four ministries - Finance, Peshmerga, Justice, and Interior, will continue to operate separately in each of the two previous regional administrations, but they are to be unified within a year. This arrangement has left the impression that the unification of the two administrations remains somewhat tentative.

Under the unification agreement, the president of the region and the prime minister will be from the KDP, while their deputies and the speaker of parliament will be from the PUK. This agreement will remain in force until new elections are held at the end of 2007. The ceremony for installing the new government was witnessed by representatives from the central government, including the vice president Adel Abd al-Mahdi and diplomats from many countries, including the U.S, the U.K., Iran, and Syria. Noticeably absent was a diplomat from Turkey.

The oath of office taken by the regional prime minister and the ministers is almost completely separatist, both in word and intention. It reads: "I swear by God the Almighty that I will loyally defend the unity of the people and the land of Iraqi Kurdistan, that I will respect the law and I will serve the interest of the people." [6] The oath of office offers no loyalty to Iraq or its constitution.

In his speech welcoming the creation of Kurdish Regional Government, Barzani made two significant comments: First, he asked that the government make serious efforts to restore to Kurdistan, by "legal and constitutional means," Kurdish territories that were taken away from it; and second, he extended a hand of friendship and cooperation to all neighboring countries while emphasizing: "The style of threats has gone for good. Henceforth, we shall not accept threats from anywhere." [7]

The vote of confidence by the Kurdish parliament for the new Kurdish government coincided with the election of Jalal Talabani as president of Iraqi for a second term. It is significant to note that while most of the Iraqi press refers to him as "President of Iraq," the Kurdish media refers to him as "The President of the Federal Republic of Iraq" [ra'is jumhuriyat al-iraq al-fidirali]. It is a message the Kurds never tire of pressing upon the Iraqi political public.

Symbols of Autonomy

Apart from regional elections for parliament and the appointment of a regional government almost entirely independent from Baghdad, there are other symbols and other measures that the KRG has taken to underscore its autonomy from the dysfunctional government in Baghdad. Some stand as a reminder to the Iraqi political establishment that the Kurds will not hesitate to go it alone if some of their fundamental demands, such as the inclusion of Kirkuk into Kurdistan, are not met, or if the central government in Baghdad tries to assert its authority over the internal affairs of KRG. It is a delicate balance that the Kurds are striving to maintain, at least for now - on the one hand, expressing the intention to remain as part of Iraq, and, on the other hand, seeking to run their lives and their regional government almost entirely independently from the central government in Baghdad. This balance is so delicate that any number of external shocks, whether political or economic, could make it go out of kilter.

The Kurdish Flag

National flags are symbols of a nation's identity, history, culture and geography. Iraq was caught by surprise when, in September 2006, Mas'oud Barzani, the president of the Kurdish region, issued a directive that all the government agencies under the KRG should lower the Iraqi national flag in favor of the Kurdish flag. But for Kurds, the current Iraqi flag with Saddam Hussein's handwritten words "Allah Akbar" is a symbol of atrocities committed against them by the Saddam regime, and the Kurdish leadership has vowed never to live under its shadow again.

For Jalal Talabani, the president of Iraq and a Kurdish national, the issue of the flag represented the dilemma between affaire d'etat and personal emotion. For Talabani no less than any other Kurdish leader, the Iraqi flag symbolizes many of the evils perpetrated against the Kurds by the regime of Saddam Hussein. But, as he told an interviewer: "This is the flag of Iraq until it is replaced. It is true that it is the flag of the ancien regime but it is the flag of Iraq, and in my capacity as the President of Iraq, it is inevitable that I serve under it." [8] When the flag crisis broke out following Barzani's directive, Talabani never wavered in his support for the Iraqi flag being raised in Kurdistan and everywhere else in Iraq. Talabani even withheld any public criticism of the Barzani's decision. Always diplomatic, he attributed Barzani's decision to what he characterized as "a constitutional void" and pledged himself to respect any Iraqi flag sanctioned by parliament. Other Iraqis would argue that Barzani's directive about the flag must be viewed as yet another challenge by the Kurds to get Iraq accustomed to their ultimate destiny.

Expanding Diplomatic Contacts

The Iraqi constitution permits each of the 18 provinces of the country to send a representative to each of the Iraqi diplomatic missions abroad. The Kurds have opted to establish their own representative offices in a number of countries.

At the same time, there is a clamoring from countries to open consulates in the Kurdish region, and the permission to do so is sought not from the Iraqi central government in Baghdad but from the Kurdistan regional government in Erbil. The countries that have either opened or plan to open such consulates are the United States, the Czech Republic, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Lebanon, the United Arab Emirates, and Iran (two consulates). It has also been announced that United Nations will open in Erbil its largest office in the Middle East. [9] In that connection, the UNDP representative arrived in Erbil in May 2006 and was received by the coordinator for the UN in the province of Kurdistan. [10] The relatively high degree of security and the assurance that they can operate with a large measure of safety in Kurdistan is the biggest incentive for foreign governments to open their consulates there. But the push to locate consulates there is also a reflection of the economic and strategic significance of Kurdistan in the context of both Iraq and the Middle East.

The visit by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Kurdistan in early October for discussion with the Kurdistan regional government is another indication that while, at least for now, Kurdistan remains politically part of Iraq, it is nevertheless an entity to be dealt with outside the formal diplomatic channels with the central government.

In November 2005, Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League, visited Kurdistan. The President of KRG, Mas'oud Barzani, visited the U.S. and was received by President Bush. He has also traveled to China and to a number of European countries where he was received in a manner befitting a head of state.

American Air Bases

In his interview with TheWashington Post, [11] President Jalal Talabani called on the United States to build two air bases in Kurdistan to protect it from foreign incursion. This is perhaps another example of Kurdistan's determination to be treated as a separate entity from Iraq.

Arabic Language Reduced to Third Place

In presenting his government program the Prime Minister of KRG indicated his government's support for teaching the Turkmen, Chaldean, Assyrian, Armenian and Arabic languages. The Arabic language was mentioned last. He then proceeded to say that the KRG will adopt the instruction of the English language throughout Iraqi Kurdistan "in all stages and for all ages." In short, Kurdish and English will be the two leading languages, while Arabic, like the languages of other minorities, will be an elective subject. It is no secret that a whole new Kurdish generation, including many who studied at Kurdish universities, has little or no proficiency in Arabic. That situation raises a serious question about their future integration into a federated Iraq.

Oil Exploration

One of the key issues pending between the Kurdistan Regional Government and the central government in Baghdad is that pertaining to the exploration of natural resources, particularly oil and natural gas in Kurdistani territory.

The Iraqi constitution, which was approved in a referendum in December 2005, is ambiguous on this issue. Under Article 111, "oil and gas are the property of the Iraqi people in all regions and governorates." However, the following article distinguishes between existing and future oil and gas fields. Article 112 assigns the central government the responsibility for "managing the oil and gas" extracted from existing fields together with the producing regions, provided the revenues are equitably distributed in accordance with the size of population, and while taking into consideration those regions that were unfairly deprived by the Saddam regime. The draft Kurdish constitution has interpreted Article 112 to mean that all mineral and water resources will also fall under the jurisdiction of the KRG, subject to the approval of the Kurdish parliament. [12]

When the Iraqi oil minister Hussein Shahristani questioned the KRG's right to sign exploration agreements with foreign companies, the Prime Minister of KRG, Nechirwan Barzani, basically told the oil minister to mind his own business. He then warned that if Baghdad continues to meddle in Kurdish autonomous affairs, Kurdistan may opt to consider seceding from Iraq. In a subsequent interview with the Financial Times the Prime Minister complained that the central government was not transferring to KRG its share of oil revenues. [13] In a testimony before a Congressional Committee, Qubad Talabany, the KRG's representative to the U.S., said Iraqi Kurds have little confidence that "an Iraqi government in Baghdad, including one with Kurdish ministers, will safeguard their fair share of national resources." [14] At the same time, President Talabani himself told the Iraqi press that any agreement relating to the exploration of oil or natural gas must be approved by the Ministry of Oil, which is in the process of preparing a new law that would regulate such agreements. [15] As noted earlier, President Talabani often finds himself in the unenviable position of having to act as president of all Iraqis without sacrificing the fundamental interests of his own people.

Signing of Oil Exploration Agreements

The Kurdish regional government signed in 2005 an exploration agreement with the small Norwegian company DNO to search for oil in the Kurdish region. The first location selected for exploration was approximately 12 miles east of the city of Zacho on the Turkish-Kurdish border. DNO has announced the discovery of approximately 100 million barrels of light crude. Encouraged by the initial results, the Norwegian company will expand its exploration activities in the area. [16]

A politically more significant agreement is with the Turkish-Canadian company General Energy, whose first drilling resulted in the production of 5000 barrels/day. The company is committed to drill two additional wells with a production capacity of 20,000 b/d. [17]

A Canadian company, Western Oil Sand, has also started exploration in four different areas in Sulaymaniya. The initial topographical survey indicates the existence of "huge quantities" of oil. [18] Other agreements are being negotiated. [19]

Problems Ahead

Despite the Kurds' many accomplishments and their determination to forge ahead toward independence at some time in the future, the path which lays ahead remains pregnant with difficulties, including determining the future of Kirkuk, establishing proper governance, and weighing the implications of seceding from Iraq.

The Issue of Kirkuk

The Kurds maintain that the city of Kirkuk is the heart of Kurdistan and should be integrated into the Kurdish region, which currently comprises the three governorates of Dahouk, Erbil, and Suleimaniya. It is Kirkuk, not Erbil, the Kurds would insist, that is the real capital of Kurdistan. In fact, the city has two large minorities, Arabs and Turkmen, but the Kurds maintain that the roots of Kirkuk are geographically Kurdistani, even if the city is not exclusively Kurdish in terms of population structure. The Kurds are so determined to include Kirkuk in their region that they have proceeded to declare the city as their own in their draft constitution and to include it in the administrative map of the region.

The Kurds also have territorial claims on other districts or cities which are geographically outside the three Kurdish governorates but have a majority Kurdish population. The Kurdish official map, currently in use in Kurdistan, includes the districts of Aqra, Sheikhan, Sinjar, Telaafar, Telkaif (mainly Christian whose population prefers integration into Kurdistan) and Qaraqosh (part of the city of Mosul) in addition to some districts in the Governorates of Dyala and Wassat. When asked about the borders of their region, the Kurds respond, "Wherever the camel stops is the border of Kurdistan." [20]

The Kurds have stated forcefully and often that they have absolutely no desire of reaching any compromise on the future of Kirkuk other than including it in the Kurdish region. [21]

Issues of Governance

While signs of prosperity are palpable across Kurdistan there are also signs of corruption, nepotism and, generally, poor governance. Also, like in the rest of Iraq, there are shortages of electricity and gasoline, which are causing a lot of hardship to large segments of the Kurdish population. [22] The shortage of electricity is mitigated by the use of electric generators, which seem to be common in many homes.

Further, there is the issue of poverty. Despite rapid economic growth generated by local and foreign investments, many families still live below the poverty line. A reporter of the London daily al-Hayat underscored the vast differences in the standards of living in Erbil, the capital of RGK. Local residents compared the differences in income and quality of life between two quarters in Erbil, the rich quarter of Azadi and the poor quarter of Bihar, as a difference between the earth and the sky. [23]

The Kurdish Position in Case of Civil War

One of the intriguing questions is what the Kurds would do in the event of a civil war breaking out in Iraq and engulfing the Shi'ite and Sunni communities. The Kurds will do their utmost to stay out of such a conflagration, as they have been doing so far. The Kurds would gain nothing by siding with either of the two sectarian groups and, in fact, there is much for them to gain by watching the conflict from behind their defensive walls. A full-fledged civil war may impel the Kurds to separate themselves from the rest of the Iraq by declaring their independence. [24] This was, in fact, the tenor of a statement made by Barzani as early as November 2005, and echoed since repeatedly by other Kurdish officials.

The Kurds have also threatened to secede should the central government in Baghdad be taken over by an Islamist party. In the words of the First Lady of Iraq, Hiro Talabani: "I am a Kurd to the marrow but I would not want to live in a fundamentalist Kurdish state for a single day." Another leading Kurdish politician who served as a prime minister in Suleimaniya, Kusrat Rusol, has also threatened to secede should an Islamist political party take over the central government. [25]

The Threat of Secession

The threat of secession from Iraq in the case of civil war should not be taken too lightly. The threat may be intended to be a warning to the two other sectarian communities - the Shi'a and the Sunnis - to avoid civil war as it would be calamitous for the entire Iraqi people, the Kurds included.

Virulent Reactions to Kurdish Aspirations

The most virulent reaction to Kurdish aspirations was by the Iraqi Republican Bloc, a Sunni group which is opposed to a federalized Iraq. It referred to "decisions and laws" frequently issued by forces seeking through "malicious conspiratorial intentions" to harm the unity of the Iraqi people. These forces "cannot exist without crises and they lack the most basic requirement for proper leadership." The statement both challenges the provisions of the Kurdish constitution which identify parts of Iraq's territory as properly belonging to Kurdistan, and threatens that such inclusion will not occur even "if seas of blood are to flow." This statement was published in the pro-Saddam daily al-Quds al-Arabi, and it is hardly surprising that it has not been published in the Iraqi mainstream newspapers. [26]

Conclusion

The Iraqi liberal daily al-Zaman points out that it was difficult to claim that the Kurds are going ahead with the creation of a state, but neither can one claim with certainty that they are not going to do so. For 13 years, they have built the foundations of their state, but it has been a silent state. The ultimate question will be the reaction of the Arab countries to the creation of a non-Arab state in their midst. [27]

The aspiration for an ultimately independent and sovereign Kurdish state runs into the harsh reality that such a state will be surrounded by hostile countries in every direction. Turkey poses the biggest threat to such an entity, particularly if the Kurds succeed in incorporating Kirkuk into their region. With its prospects for admission into the European Union increasingly dimming, Turkey will be increasingly less restrained to use force to frustrate Kurdish sovereignty. At a minimum, Turkey could close its borders with Kurdistan and prevent the movement of people and goods across the border. In the absence of access to ports and overflight rights, an independent Kurdistan will be far worse than an autonomous Kurdish region that enjoys so much freedom and so few constraints.

Kurdistan also faces internal problems. It must convert the slogans of democracy and political competitiveness into reality by establishing the foundations of proper governance and policies.

Finally, the Kurdish people must demonstrate genuine unity, after years of intra-Kurdish disagreement and even bloody clashes. The two historic leaders of modern Kurdistan, Jalal Talabani and Mas'oud Barazani, have agreed to unify their separate administrations, but it is not certain that they have buried the hatchet. The two men must convince not only the outside world but also their own people that henceforth they will march hand in hand to achieve whatever they determine to be in the best interest of the Kurdish people.

*Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli is Senior Analyst of MEMRI's Middle East Economic Studies Program.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Interview with President Jalal Talabani on al-Arabiya TV, PUK Media, August 30, 2005.

[2] The Treaties of Peace 1919-1923, Vol. 11, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, New York 1924.

[3] Babil (Iraq), October 16, 2002.

[4] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), June 16, 2006.

[5] Al-Qabas (Kuwait) February 11, 2006.

[6] Al-Hayat (London), May 12, 2006.

[7] Al-Mada (Iraq), May 8, 2006.

[8] PUK Media, August 30, 2005.

[9] Al-Mada (Iraq), December 7, 2005.

[10] Al-Taakhi (Iraq), May 27, 2006.

[11] The Washington Post, September 25, 2006.

[12] http://www.sotaliraq.com/articles.php, September 29, 2006.

[13] The Financial Times (London), October 23, 2006.

[14] KRG Third Occasional Paper, September 28, 2006.

[15] Al-Zaman (Iraq), October 1, 2006.

[16] Al-Zaman (Iraq), June 13, 2006.

[17] Al-Hayat (London), September 29, 2006.

[18] Kurdish News Agency, March 2, 2006.

[19] Al-Zaman (Iraq), November 30, 2003.

[20] Al-Ahali weekly (Iraq), April 21, 2005.

[21] For more analysis on the subject please refer to MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis No. 215, "Kirkuk: Between Kurdish separatism and Iraqi federalism," March 31, 2005, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA21505.

[22] On the problem of governance in Iraq, see Bilal Wahab, "Iraqi Kurdistan: Time to get serious about governance," www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1878&prog=zgp&proj=zme.znpp#iraqikurdistan.

[23] Al-Hayat (London), July 4, 2006.

[24] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), November 7, 2005.

[25] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), December 10, 2005.

[26] Al-Quds al-Arabi (London), October 1, 2006.

[27] Al-Zaman (Iraq), September 18, 2006.

Partitioning Iraq into three countries is the most viable plan

Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, co-chairman of a bipartisan commission studying Washington's Iraq policy, will release his panel's alternative to the "stay-the-course" strategy next month. If partitioning Iraq into three countries is presented as an alternative, then the White House should earnestly consider and pursue the idea. This course of action will salvage Americans' faith in the Iraq policy, and will be in the Iraqi people's best interest.

The current "stay-the-course" policy has utterly failed. Insurgent activities are escalating, sectarian clashes are intensifying, the Iraqi people's suffering is worsening, the loss of American lives is climbing, and war expenditures are rising. The existing plan to pursue terrorists until each one of them is captured or killed has proven unworkable. On the other hand, the United States' military departure from Iraq would be ominous for the entire Middle East, calamitous to the Iraqi people, and a clear proclamation of the failure of American foreign policy. Slicing Iraq into three countries is the only viable plan that will pacify the majority of Iraq and promise the US success in Iraq.

The lack of security, sectarian violence and insurgencies are the main ailments plaguing the Iraqi people. And that's only the beginning, considering the precarious nature of the serious and real threat of a wider civil war breaking out. But if Iraq were divided into three countries - a Shiite nation in the south, Kurdish in the north, and Sunni Arab in the middle - this would solve many of the current host of problems and obviate the threat of civil war.

How would the division of Iraq bring an end to the activities of insurgents? Consider the present traveling arrangements in Iraq. The Iraqis, by virtue of their citizenship, are at liberty to travel anywhere within their country. This means an entire terrorist cell or their members can travel freely within Iraq, and allows weapons, ammunition, and needed funds to be transferred from one place to another. Most dangerously, it gives terrorists the ability to organize and recruit across the region. It is widely known that the source of the problem emanates from the central part of the country. Narrowing the realm of the problem requires the seclusion of the Sunni Arabs in central Iraq. Partitioning Iraq is the most efficacious way to achieve this. Once Iraq is partitioned, borders would then be drawn, and border security would hinder illicit traveling since a passport would be required.

The partitioning of Iraq would also help decrease violence in Kurdistan. The present chaos in both Kirkuk and Mosul are largely engendered by the hundreds of thousands of Saddam's followers who were settled in these cities and their surroundings during the Arabization campaign. Once an independent Kurdistan is declared, the Kurds will gracefully deport Saddam's followers to their respective homelands. Unfortunately, the Iraqi government and the US have not taken this predicament seriously enough, and as a result it has persisted and drags on, but in an independent Kurdistan it will be dealt with expediently to prevent further bloodshed and restore justice and equity.

An all-out civil war would be thwarted by the creation of three separate countries. The Sunni Arabs would not be able to freely enter the Iraqi Shiites' country nor Kurdistan due to border restrictions. At the same time, the menace of civil war between Kurds and Arabs would be averted since Kirkuk and Mosul's problematic non-natives would be deported, and the small native Arab Sunni population will not pose a grave threat.

In the central region, the most chaotic in Iraq, there would remain some violence after the partitioning of Iraq. But terror organizations eventually will be a thing of the past since the Sunni land will be squeezed between Kurds and Shiites, cutting off Sunni insurgents from their suppliers, thus lessening their ability to reach the outside world for ammunitions and material support.

When talking about the division of Iraq, or in particular about Kurdish statehood, Iraq's neighbors put up resounding objections, as if it's their right to predestine the Iraqi people's future, and plan for their political and social arrangements. Those opposed to partitioning Iraq are Syria and Iran, both of whom are US enemies. The other foe is Turkey which has proven itself to be an unreliable friend to the US and a liability. America should not sell out or ignore its best friend in the region, the Kurds, to appease its enemies or an unworthy friend.

Should Mr. Baker's panel be thorough, one of the alternatives to current US-Iraq strategy they come up with will have to be the partitioning of Iraq into three countries. When that presents itself as a solution, President Bush should act upon it promptly. If he does, the legacy of failure in Iraq policy will be transfigured into undisputed success, one of Bush's triumphant, estimable legacies that will duly inspire the Iraqi people, in particular the Kurds.

What a jokey article. Yeah, let the Shiites build there own Islamic Republic in southern Iraq like the Islamic Republic of Iran and let the Syrians get the Sunni Iraq under their political control. Two friendly new states controled by Iran and Syria will be the result if you want a partition of Iraq. That a kurdish nationlist like the writer wants a partition is clear, but it will create two new enenmy states of the USA and of course of Israel.

While most of the Kurds strongly back president Bush for his courageous decision to overthrow Saddam's tyrannical regime, we do believe that dividing Iraq into three loose federal states will be the best cure to a sick born Iraq in the political hospital of old Great Britain. Like author correctly highlighted, 80% of Iraqis are in favor of this solution, so If we are looking for what is best for Iraqis why should we consider what is best for Turkey, Syria and Iran? Do they consider Interest of Iraqis in their political issues? Do what is over due from 1921 and do it NOW. be visionary MR. President and Face it

YES FOR INDEPENDANT KURDISTAN

Do not agree with Mr Bush's claim that Kurdish state cause problem for Turkey, Syria and Iran. Kurdish people never ever harmed these states in opposite they have always violated Kurd's Human right (see Human right watch website. Kurdistan regional government policy proved that Kurd want to live in peace and harmony with its neighbours.