Printer-friendly VersionBy Azad Aslan
Globe Editorial
The deadlock over the Iraqi general election bill due to the status of Kirkuk city and the surrounding debates among Iraqi groups and regional/international interferences are clear and alarming signals to be taken seriously by the Kurdish political actors. The signals indicate the lack of democracy in Iraq, the status of the Kurds in the Middle East, and the struggle of global interests on Iraq.
Following the fall of Saddam, there was naïve hope that Iraq would evolve toward democracy and rule of law. It has now become clear that such optimistic expectations about the future of Iraq were illusions if not naivety. Iraq is moving nowhere near federalism and democracy. This naivety was short-lived and left in its place a hard reality that what overrides Iraq is not democratization of the country but local and regional interests of various factions and power centers. Apart from the Kurds, almost all the factions in Iraq (both Shiites and Sunnis as well as some section of Turkmens), with the support of some regional powers, ventured to enlarge their economic and political interests at the expense of the others.
Rather than respecting democratic principles and obeying the Iraqi
Constitution in solving outstanding questions, they employed a number of undemocratic mechanisms to deny the rights of the others.
Since its artificial creation by imperial colonial powers at the outset of 20th century, Iraq has never exercised or attempted to run its affairs by democratic principles. Run by despotic regimes backed by various global powers Iraq has never paid due attention and respect to its various national and regional components. Historical background, political experience, and tendency of Iraqi political actors do not provide any rational reason to expect Iraq to ever become a democratic country. The ongoing row over the election bill and undemocratic proposals by some Arab and Turkmen factions clearly indicates this trend and the Kurds are becoming more anxious about their place in Iraq.
Iraqi political affairs have never been wholly Iraqi internal issues but have always been influenced and manipulated by regional and international power centers. This is particularly the case since the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
United Nations involvement with the Kirkuk issue and the way it handled the issue cost the credibility of this organization and clearly indicates the lack of neutrality of the UN in world affairs. Since the beginning, the UN main role on the issue of Kirkuk was to delay the issue and manipulate the Kurds not to solve the issue on their own. One of the greatest mistakes of the Kurdish political actors was to accept UN involvement with the Kirkuk question. They should have insisted that it is an internal affair of Iraq and should be resolved solely by the Iraqi people. The recent proposal by the UN on the election bill and Kirkuk issue clearly demonstrate that the UN is not bothered with the democratization of Iraq, but rather to serve interests of various powers in or on Iraq. The Kurds rightly rejected straight away the UN proposal to the Iraqi Council of Representatives in which it states that Arabs and Turkmen should receive more than two seats in Kirkuk. Why this unjust special treatment for Kirkuk? In Mosul province there are mixed groups and serious conflicts among them, and yet there is no UN concern over it. The UN has no credibility left about its independence and objectivity toward the issues in Iraq. It is very clear that the UN is working as an agent to pursue some clandestine interests of certain regional and global powers rather than what is right and just. This can be said for the U.S. involvement on the issue as well. It is not a secret that through its military officers, the U.S. pressures the Kurds to compromise on the issue of Kirkuk. Turkey, who tries to improve its relations with the Kurdistan Regional Government and sent its Foreign Minister to Erbil to tighten positive relations, nonetheless is directly involved with the Kirkuk issue and sent its Iraqi ambassador to talk with Iraqi parliamentarians to convey Turkey's view and wishes on the issue. It is clear that since the fall of Saddam, Turkey fiercely opposes incorporation of Kirkuk into Kurdistan Region.
Kirkuk is the most strategic question that will determine the future of Iraq as well as Kurdistan. The Kurdish determination on Kirkuk is going to be the key to the preservation and deepening of Kurdish national rights, and will be the source of hope for the other parts of Kurdistan to improve their democratic and national rights.
The UN, the U.S., and regional powers' involvement in the Kirkuk question and their stance indicates a rather serious point of the global powers' position toward the Kurdish national question. It becomes clearer now that the place and role the Kurds are to have will be limited to the three provinces that the KRG runs. In other words, the global power juxtaposition vis-à-vis the Kurds can be summarized as keeping the Kurds with limited power within the limited border areas. The Kurds are forced to accept being a small political entity within Erbil, Suleimaniya, and Duhok. Global powers do not have any policy to recognize the Kurds' legitimate claims and rights.
Global and regional powers assume that political stability of Iraq depends on the Kurdish compromise over their land, their right over natural resources, and their power relation with Baghdad. All these pressures over the Kurds are just for the sake of Iraq's political stability. The overriding concern is not democratization of Iraq, but relative stability so that they could further their interests in the region.
What can the Kurds do? Can they stand against all those global and regional powers? Should they give up on Kirkuk? The simple answer to all these questions is that the Kurds have no chance but to resist on Kirkuk and other outstanding issues including oil and sharing power. For the sake of stability of Iraq, the Kurds cannot compromise on their national and legitimate democratic rights. Should Iraq's stability be jeopardized due to the Kurdish just demands, let it then be jeopardized. The Kurds should not take place in a united but undemocratic Iraq. Separation will be a better option.
The Kurds have no option but to insist that the election be held on time and Kirkuk be included in this election without any special status. The newly formed Kurdish government and Kurdistan Parliament must be determined to see the issue to the end. Any further compromise on this issue will be detrimental for the Kurdish general interests. The Kurds are at the end road whether we go our separate way from rest of Iraq. Whatever consequences are, the Kurds must be ready to face them.