| |
Crunch time for
Kurds
By Jean-Christophe Peuch
PRAGUE - As the United States works toward
restoring a semblance of central authority in Iraq,
various ethnic, tribal, social, and religious groups are
jockeying for representation in a future Iraqi
government.
Shi'ite clerics from the south, Sunni
Arabs from the central regions, Kurds from the northern
mountains, tribal leaders and exiled politicians
gathered in Baghdad on Monday to attend a US-sponsored
meeting aimed at discussing possible post-Saddam Hussein
strategies.
As in Nasiriyah two weeks ago, Jalal
Talabani's Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and Mas'ud
Barzani's Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) were
represented in Baghdad, but not at the level of party
leaders. The two Kurdish groups have in effect been
running northern Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War. Barzani
and Talabani reportedly viewed both meetings as
low-profile forums not authoritative enough to justify
their presence.
It is a crucial time for the
Kurds, who have been struggling for their cultural and
political rights for most of the past century and
represent the largest armed force in Iraq.
David
McDowall, a British historian of Kurdish nationalism,
believes Iraq's 4 million to 6 million Kurds - who
supported the US-led war - are in the best position
since the demise of the Ottoman Empire to achieve their
decades-long dream of self-determination.
"The
most important thing to bear in mind [when assessing the
current situation] is that this is the biggest
opportunity the Kurds of Iraq have had since 1918 to
actually configure their position in relation to
Mesopotamia in the way that they want," McDowall said.
"There is no regime at the moment in Baghdad, and when
there is one, it will be very weak, and their principal
concern will be Turkey."
The Kurds make no secret
that they would like to see a federal state emerge from
the rubble of Saddam's regime - a scenario that is
likely to gain some support among Iraq's Shi'ite Muslim
majority. The Shi'ites complain that they have lived
under the thumb of Sunni Arabs since the end of Ottoman
rule.
Although US President George W Bush has
reportedly said he envisages a federation made up of
Iraq's major ethnic groups, Washington has apparently
not committed to any layout for a future government.
Talking to reporters in Baghdad on April 22 on his
return from the north, the US civil administrator for
Iraq, retired General Jay Garner, even denied that
Kurdish leaders were considering federalism as an
option.
"I spent the last two days with Mr
Talabani and Mr Barzani, and they never used that term
one time," Garner said. "They both talked about a
democratic process and that they were going to have a
democracy, which was a mosaic of all of Iraq, [which]
would include all the ethnic groups, [which] would
include the tribes, [which] would include the cultures,
[which] would include the religions, [which] would
include the professions. [But] they never mentioned
federalism one time."
Some commentators have
interpreted that statement as an attempt to allay the
concerns of northern Iraq's minority groups. While
apparently pouring cold water on the Kurds' demands for
recognition of their de facto autonomy, Garner last week
praised their 12-year-old rule in the north as a
possible model for Iraq. He also reportedly described
the northern city of Kirkuk as "Kurdish".
This
remark triggered a swift reaction from Ankara, which
reminded the United States of an alleged earlier promise
that Kirkuk would not fall into Kurdish hands. Turkey
fears that northern Iraq's vast hydrocarbon reserves
might sustain Kurdish autonomy and insists that Kirkuk
and other regional oil-rich cities remain under
Baghdad's jurisdiction.
Martin van Bruinessen is
an expert on Kurdish affairs who teaches at Utrecht
University's Institute of Oriental Languages and
Cultures in the Netherlands. He says Garner's
contradicting remarks reflect the Bush administration's
lack of clear vision about Iraq's future and US
uneasiness before North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) member Turkey.
Ankara fears that an
economically self-sufficient Kurdish entity in northern
Iraq might impact its own Kurdish minority. Van
Bruinessen said, "I think the US, in a sense, is walking
on a tightrope. I think it is not so much the other
ethnic groups they are worried about as Turkey. Turkey
is strongly opposed to any federal settlement in Iraq.
[The Turks] have repeatedly threatened with [military]
intervention because they feel that their vital
interests [would be] threatened if Iraq becomes a
federal state. So I guess the Americans are telling
Turkey not to worry and, at the same time, they are
trying to keep the Kurds happy by - like Garner did the
other day - telling them that Kirkuk is Kurdish."
Kirkuk surrendered to Kurdish Peshmergas
(fighters) almost without a fight shortly after Baghdad
fell to coalition forces. The Kurds then started
expelling settlers brought into the city in the 1970s
under Saddam's forced "Arabization" policy.
Inter-community clashes erupted, leaving at least 20
dead and 200 wounded.
Unrest was also reported
in Mosul to the northeast and in Khanaqin near the
Iranian border. Like Kirkuk, both oil-rich cities are
claimed by Iraqi Kurds. In a bid to ease inter-ethnic
tensions, thousands of American soldiers last week moved
into Kirkuk and Mosul to disarm Kurdish militiamen.
Ankara is suspected of seeking to foster ethnic
unrest in the area in an effort to trigger a
peacekeeping intervention under the pretext that
northern Iraq's sizable Turkoman minority needs
protection from the Kurds. Last week, US soldiers
reportedly arrested Turkish soldiers clad in civilian
clothes who were escorting a cargo of weapons hidden in
an aid convoy meant for Kirkuk. Ankara denied sending
any troops to the area. The incident is symptomatic of
tensions that exists in the north and bodes ill,
especially if a federal settlement is reached for Iraq.
Like Turkey, both Iran and Syria are concerned
at the prospect of northern Iraq officially achieving
autonomy for fear that this would set an example for
their own Kurdish minorities. Regional experts believe
that all three countries may be tempted to return to a
longtime policy of interference in Iraqi Kurdish
affairs.
McDowall believes this is especially
true of Iran and Syria, which view a US military
presence in the region as a threat. "Before Saddam was
removed, the Iraqi regime was viewed by Iran as an
unpleasant one that, although it had fought a bloody war
[with Tehran in 1980-88], was not viewed as dangerous
simply because at the end it was perfectly clear by the
ceasefire signed in July 1988 that Iraq would not dream
of attacking Iran again. But now you have a situation
where the Americans would like to set up military bases
in Iraq and the only conceivable purpose for those bases
is to act against Iran or Syria. And so, suddenly, Iran
has been given a compelling reason to seek to undermine
any pro-Western government that is formed in Baghdad,
and I am sure they will do everything they can to
sabotage [such a government]."
Turkey, Iran and
Syria have considered the troubled region of Kurdistan
as a major lever to protect their own strategic
interests in the region. As they have done in the past,
all three countries could now be tempted to exploit the
mosaic of Iraq's ethnic, religious, and tribal
communities to achieve their goals. Utrecht University's
van Bruinessen said, "The Turks have their proxies, the
Iranians have their proxies, and the Syrians have their
proxies among Iraqis. The Iranians have the Supreme
Council for the Islamic Revolution [in Iraq], which
consists of Iraqi Shi'ites. Turkey has its proxies among
one of the Turkoman parties, [the Iraqi Turkoman Front],
and [it] may try to use also certain Kurdish tribal
chieftains as its representatives. Syria has had for a
long time dissident factions of [Iraq's former ruling]
Ba'ath Party that listened to it, and it has also had a
strong influence on the PUK, the Kurdish party."
But foreign interference is not the only risk
facing Iraqi Kurdistan. The disappearance of the Ba'ath
regime - the greatest threat to the Kurds - may further
weaken already loose intertribal ties and reignite the
traditional rivalry between Barzani and Talabani as each
of the two leaders tries to pose as the most influential
regional leader.
McDowall believes this rivalry
may play into the hands of any government in Baghdad,
which could be tempted to exploit it to reassert its
control over Kurdistan. "Since the KDP and the PUK are
basically rivals, the prospect, I think, is that their
rivalry will become - now that the danger to them from
Saddam has ceased to be - a major feature of Iraqi
Kurdistan and, maybe, a major feature over the way a
Kurdish federal state relates to Baghdad," McDowall
said. "Just imagine, if you are in Baghdad and you are
not very strong, you would do everything you can to play
off Barzani against Talabani, knowing that they loathe
each other."
Since the emergence of the PUK as a
splinter group of the KDP in the mid-1970s, both parties
have fought intermittent wars that claimed thousands of
lives. In their struggle for influence, Barzani and
Talabani have relied on political or military support
offered alternately by Baghdad, Tehran, Ankara and
Damascus.
In the late 1990s, a US-brokered
agreement led to local elections that ended in a dead
heat for both parties, which each garnered some 45
percent of the seats in a regional parliament. Experts
believe new elections including Kirkuk - in case the
city is included in a federal Kurdistan - would not
affect the political balance of forces and might
therefore lead to military confrontation between the two
groups.
As van Bruinessen puts it, "The military
aspect of the [US-led] war was relatively simple, but
the aftermath is where the biggest risks are. There are
so many conflicting interests in Iraq - especially in
the Kirkuk, Mosul and Khanaqin areas - that I find it
hard to imagine a stable situation any time soon."
(©2003 RFE/RL Inc. Reprinted with the permission
of Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave NW,
Washington, DC 20036.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
