Friday, December 31, 2004
Kurdistan in Iraq
Today’s Times brings back the discussion of the Kurdish independence movement in Iraq. It describes the three largely Kurdish provinces of Iraq’s northeast, governed by the Kurdish Regional Government, as to all intents and purposes an independent country. They have been independent in one way or another since 1991 and today are more unified and stronger than ever. Their security forces are the most effective non-coalition forces in the country. They have managed to preserve near total exemption from the violence in the rest of the country. Investment is pouring in, especially from overseas Kurds, but also from Turkey. The reporter said that he saw very few flags of Iraq but Kurdish flags were everywhere. It is a largely secular society with a booming economy. A new luxury hotel is going up in the capital, Erbil.
Kurdish leaders speak of the desire of the Kurds to remain in Iraq in a loose federal system. But one gets the impression that this is just the diplomatic discourse of leaders who know that the United States is unlikely to accept greater demands. The attitude and behavior of the people suggests they will accept little less than effective independence. Meanwhile, these same leaders are demanding that Kirkuk, an important city because of its surrounding oil fields, be turned over to them. They speak of the need to have an accepted right to the oil resources of the region, a right that the defense minister for the regional government says would allow them to triple the size of their forces (to 240,000!). At least 100,000 Arabs have been driven out of the Kirkuk area by the Kurds since the defeat of Saddam. This was simply payback for a Saddam expulsion of Kurds in the recent past. Kurds are reoccupying their old houses and lands. But it has generated a resettlement problem.
The flash point could come very soon. In the U.S.-initiated constitution that Iraq lives by now, the Kurds are guaranteed a right to veto any provisions they do not like (such as reducing their autonomy). But the Shiites have suggested that these rules cannot last beyond the January election. They have indicated they want a country at long last that they will rule and the Kurds must stay in it. The United States and other powers, near and far, have indicated there should be Kurdish autonomy, but this seems in the words of Condoleezza Rice and others to be more like the autonomy of California than what the Kurds have in mind.
But what do the Kurds have in mind? There is no example that I know of in the world that really fits their idea of autonomy. We could look at Albania and Montenegro in Yugoslavia/Serbia, but these hardly seem to be viable examples. A better example, ironically, might be Taiwan, a country that the world has decided to treat as part of China, but is able to maintain itself as an independent state in spite of that. What the Kurds, sheltered behind a seasoned and successful armed force of their own, and with enough money to maintain it, seem unlikely to accept is a country “occupied” by a largely Arab army answerable to Baghdad.
Ambassador Galbraith, a person who has worked with the Kurds independently and for the American government for years, and served as Ambassador to Croatia after it separated from Yugoslavia advises us here to support an essentially autonomous Kurdistan, covering it with the fig leaf of federalism. He argues that geographically separate and distinct peoples cannot be forced to live together in a unified state, a fact he says he found out in Yugoslavia. Yes, we all found it out. But where does that leave federalism? He appears in his heart to want Kurdish independence, but he believes the unwillingness of Turkey, Iran, and Turkey, all with large Kurdish minorities striving for autonomy, to accept true Kurdish independence makes the achievement of anything more than a very limited autonomy impossible. The long and bitter Kurdish struggle in Turkey had its roots in a communist movement, and has resulted in extreme violence on both sides. The Turkish army is naturally apprehensive about an independent Kurdistan. In Iran, the short-lived Kurdish Mahabad Republic after World War II was briefly supported by the USSR. Their leadership was essentially nationalists and tribal; their leaders were from the same family that rules in half of Iraq's Kurdistan today. There does not seem to be a strong nationalist movement in Iranian Kurdistan now, but the population is Sunni and is apparently quite opposed to Shi'a rule from Tehran. An independent Kurdistan in Iraq could be a spark that could blow apart the current regime in Iran.
Some parting thoughts. The outside world overwhelmingly accepts the idea that the Kurds should not be allowed to secede from Iraq. One small chink in the armor is an Australian Senator who argues for complete independence. It must also encourage the Kurds to find that Turkish companies have been more than willing to engage in the reconstruction of the country. On this front, the Kurdish leadership has been most accommodating, resisting any idea that they would help the struggle of the Kurds in Turkey for independence. On the other hand, there is a large Kurdish population in Mosul, a city now partially occupied by Kurdish forces but outside the area they normally claim, and perhaps a million Kurds continue to live in Baghdad. In any messy breakup of the country Kurds outside Kurdistan could suffer, or at least there could be large population exchanges.
My feeling is that the United States should think long and hard about supporting an independent homeland for the Kurds. We have supported the independence of Israel under much more doubtful circumstances, and we have come to feel that Israel is our only true ally in the region. Kurdistan and the Kurds, if we stay by them and do not abandon them again, could become another long-term ally in the region. Of course, we have our eye on the larger prize of a stable, pro-American, democratic Iraq. Maybe so. But in the pursuit of this dream, we should not lose site of the current reality of a secular Kurdistan that wants to be in our corner.
Kurdish leaders speak of the desire of the Kurds to remain in Iraq in a loose federal system. But one gets the impression that this is just the diplomatic discourse of leaders who know that the United States is unlikely to accept greater demands. The attitude and behavior of the people suggests they will accept little less than effective independence. Meanwhile, these same leaders are demanding that Kirkuk, an important city because of its surrounding oil fields, be turned over to them. They speak of the need to have an accepted right to the oil resources of the region, a right that the defense minister for the regional government says would allow them to triple the size of their forces (to 240,000!). At least 100,000 Arabs have been driven out of the Kirkuk area by the Kurds since the defeat of Saddam. This was simply payback for a Saddam expulsion of Kurds in the recent past. Kurds are reoccupying their old houses and lands. But it has generated a resettlement problem.
The flash point could come very soon. In the U.S.-initiated constitution that Iraq lives by now, the Kurds are guaranteed a right to veto any provisions they do not like (such as reducing their autonomy). But the Shiites have suggested that these rules cannot last beyond the January election. They have indicated they want a country at long last that they will rule and the Kurds must stay in it. The United States and other powers, near and far, have indicated there should be Kurdish autonomy, but this seems in the words of Condoleezza Rice and others to be more like the autonomy of California than what the Kurds have in mind.
But what do the Kurds have in mind? There is no example that I know of in the world that really fits their idea of autonomy. We could look at Albania and Montenegro in Yugoslavia/Serbia, but these hardly seem to be viable examples. A better example, ironically, might be Taiwan, a country that the world has decided to treat as part of China, but is able to maintain itself as an independent state in spite of that. What the Kurds, sheltered behind a seasoned and successful armed force of their own, and with enough money to maintain it, seem unlikely to accept is a country “occupied” by a largely Arab army answerable to Baghdad.
Ambassador Galbraith, a person who has worked with the Kurds independently and for the American government for years, and served as Ambassador to Croatia after it separated from Yugoslavia advises us here to support an essentially autonomous Kurdistan, covering it with the fig leaf of federalism. He argues that geographically separate and distinct peoples cannot be forced to live together in a unified state, a fact he says he found out in Yugoslavia. Yes, we all found it out. But where does that leave federalism? He appears in his heart to want Kurdish independence, but he believes the unwillingness of Turkey, Iran, and Turkey, all with large Kurdish minorities striving for autonomy, to accept true Kurdish independence makes the achievement of anything more than a very limited autonomy impossible. The long and bitter Kurdish struggle in Turkey had its roots in a communist movement, and has resulted in extreme violence on both sides. The Turkish army is naturally apprehensive about an independent Kurdistan. In Iran, the short-lived Kurdish Mahabad Republic after World War II was briefly supported by the USSR. Their leadership was essentially nationalists and tribal; their leaders were from the same family that rules in half of Iraq's Kurdistan today. There does not seem to be a strong nationalist movement in Iranian Kurdistan now, but the population is Sunni and is apparently quite opposed to Shi'a rule from Tehran. An independent Kurdistan in Iraq could be a spark that could blow apart the current regime in Iran.
Some parting thoughts. The outside world overwhelmingly accepts the idea that the Kurds should not be allowed to secede from Iraq. One small chink in the armor is an Australian Senator who argues for complete independence. It must also encourage the Kurds to find that Turkish companies have been more than willing to engage in the reconstruction of the country. On this front, the Kurdish leadership has been most accommodating, resisting any idea that they would help the struggle of the Kurds in Turkey for independence. On the other hand, there is a large Kurdish population in Mosul, a city now partially occupied by Kurdish forces but outside the area they normally claim, and perhaps a million Kurds continue to live in Baghdad. In any messy breakup of the country Kurds outside Kurdistan could suffer, or at least there could be large population exchanges.
My feeling is that the United States should think long and hard about supporting an independent homeland for the Kurds. We have supported the independence of Israel under much more doubtful circumstances, and we have come to feel that Israel is our only true ally in the region. Kurdistan and the Kurds, if we stay by them and do not abandon them again, could become another long-term ally in the region. Of course, we have our eye on the larger prize of a stable, pro-American, democratic Iraq. Maybe so. But in the pursuit of this dream, we should not lose site of the current reality of a secular Kurdistan that wants to be in our corner.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
