|
Over thirty million Kurds remain stateless today,
often at someone else's mercy. At a time when much
of the world insists that there be a 22nd or 23rd
Arab state, there is a nauseating silence over the
plight of this people.
Spread out over a region which encompasses parts of
southeastern Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and other
adjoining areas as well, these modern day
descendants of ancient Medes and Hurrians continue
to find themselves in very precarious circumstances.
Kurdish culture and language has periodically been
"outlawed" in attempts to Arabize or Turkify them,
and in an age when other dormant nations/national
groups were able to seize the moment with the
collapse of empires, the Kurds were repeatedly
denied this chance by an assortment of so-called
"friends" and foes alike.
Having been promised independence after World War I,
the Kurds soon saw their hopes dashed after the
British received a favorable decision from the
League of Nations on the Mosul Question in 1925.
Predominantly Kurdish Mosul and Kirkuk were where
much of the oil was located, and the main arm of
British imperial power -- the navy -- had recently
switched from coal to oil.
The Brits decided that their long term interests
involved not angering the region's Arabs, who -- by
their own writings -- declared that the rise of an
independent Kurdistan would be seen as the
equivalent of the birth of another Israel.
Regardless of scores of millions of non-Arabs living
in the region (including one half of Israel's Jews
who were from "Arab"/Muslim lands), Arabs declared a
political monopoly over what they regarded as
"purely Arab patrimony." We are living with the
consequences of this mindset today.
Much has been written about America's abuse of the
Kurds, although the mainstream press, media,
academia, and other supposedly "enlightened" folks
have -- with some notable exceptions -- too often
ignored this.
Having stood by our side and aided America
continuously over the decades, the State Department
has too often pulled the rug out from under the
Kurds after their immediate "use" was deemed
over...with deadly consequences to this people. And
yet, they have remained strangely loyal to
Washington.
While I won't rehash the disgraceful behavior of
much earlier periods, recent and current policies
are sufficient to make the point. And while I am
focusing on America, the rest of the world -- for
the most part -- has been as bad or worse. Since
America has the power to greatly influence the
course of geopolitics all around the world, my focus
is thus on my own country.
America should always strive to be a shining light.
And I say this not out of naivete.
America has the power and ability to do this as no
other nation has. All it lacks is the will. And this
is largely due to the click that runs the Department
of State. On the Kurdish issue, it has assumed
Britain's posture in the post-World War I era
vis-`-vis the Kurds. Whatever will or won't happen
in the upcoming Iraqi elections, the Kurds are
likely, once again, to get the shaft.
Foggy Bottom insists--after hundreds of thousands of
Kurds have been maimed, gassed, and slaughtered in
other ways by Arabs just in Iraq alone over the last
several decades (Syrian Arabs have recently renewed
their previous slaughter of Kurds as well) -- that
Kurds will never gain independence. Shi'a and Sunni
Arabs may blow each other to bits...but they're both
still Arabs. Neither are about to grant Kurds any
equal status in the "purely Arab patrimony." The
heartland of Kurdistan had been in the region around
oil-rich Kirkuk.
State insists that the Kurds remain part of a united
Iraq...regardless of the bloody consequences this
will probably have for them in the future yet again.
America's federalist dream, while looking good on
paper, is largely rejected by the Arabs themselves,
be they Shi'a or Sunni. The majority Shi'a, long
suppressed by Saddam, now have other plans.
The Shi'a refuse to grant Kurds any control over
their own fate...regardless of any alleged partial
federal agreement achieved so far with America's
continuous prodding. And Arabs, of any stripe, are
still not about to grant Kurds any real equality. A
visit to the Kurdish Media's website would be very
useful to any and all needing "enlightenment" in
these regards. An article posted by Dr. Hussein
Tahiri's "The Iraqi Shi'ites: When An Oppressed
Becomes Oppressor," posted March 8, 2004 in
KurdishMedia.com is revealing, but there are many
other good ones as well.
The same State Department -- which fought President
Truman over America's recognition of a reborn Israel
in 1948--insists that there be no partition of
Mesopotamia/Iraq. Britain had earlier received the
Mandate for Mesopotamia at the same time it received
the Mandate for Palestine in the post-World War I
era. But, unlike Palestine, which would undergo a
number of partitions in attempts to arrive at a
compromise solution between Arab and Jew, a much
larger Mesopotamia was somehow declared to be
incapable of doing this for its Kurds.
In 1922, Colonial Secretary Churchill chopped off
roughly 80% of the original territory Britain
received for the Mandate of Palestine on April 25,
1920, and handed it over to its Hashemite Arab
allies. Purely Arab Transjordan -- today's Jordan --
was thus born. Arabs rejected another partition in
1947 which would have given them roughly half of the
20% of the land that was left. President Bush and
State today insist that Arabs will get their 23rd
state, and second one in "Palestine."
The main reason put forth for why Mesopotamia/Iraq
is incapable of this sort of partition is the
potential for instability it will cause in the
region. Not only will the Arabs be miffed at someone
else gaining national rights in "their" region, but
the Turks, in particular, will supposedly have a fit
due to their own large (and suppressed) Kurdish
minority.
I support a strong Turco-American alliance...always
have. But the Turks are wrong on this matter.
While it is understandable that they're nervous
about the potential problems, this does not give
them the right to have a veto power over the plight
of some thirty million long-oppressed and abused
people. An independent Kurdistan set up in northern
Iraq -- under the right conditions -- might actually
be a blessing for the Turks. Those Kurds -- like
those Jews, Greeks, Armenians, etc. -- wishing to
live in an independent state could migrate to it. An
arrangement could also be made whereby the oil
wealth of the area could be shared with the Turks as
well, since they feel they got robbed via the
earlier decision by the League of Nations on the
Mosul Question.
Putting things into the broader perspective,
consider the following sickening facts...
A visit to the CIA's Fact Book on the Internet shows
Israel to have a population of roughly 6 million
people, of whom about 20% are Arab. Among the latter
are some very hostile elements. Israel's territory
is about 20,770 sq Km.
Turkey has a population of about 68 million people,
of whom about 20% are Kurds. Turkey's territory is
about 780,580 sq Km. About 38 Israels would fit into
Turkey.
Keeping the above in mind, Foggy Bottom has no
problem demanding that Israel allow the creation of
another Arab terrorist state, dedicated to its
destruction, right in its backyard. State continues
to ignore proclamations by even so-called Arab
"moderates" that Oslo and all other such "peace
initiatives" are but "Trojan Horses," steps along
the way in the Arabs' post-'67 destruction in phases
strategy for Israel.
Now, how will the fifth of miniscule Israel's
population that is Arab react to this adjacent
potential development? And how will the majority of
Hashemite Jordan, which is also mostly Palestinian
Arab (however you define that...many, if not most,
Arabs had entered the Mandate from elsewhere in the
region during the Mandatory Period), also react to
this? Arafat's boys had already tried a takeover of
Jordan in 1970. They were crushed in King Hussein's
"Black September." And Israel's mobilization in the
north sent a message to the PLO's Syrian allies at
the time as well. Yet the Foggy Folks seem not to be
worried about any destablizing effects here.
The same hypocrites who declare that Israel must
grossly endanger itself so that a 23rd Arab state
might be born insist that Kurds must remain forever
stateless because of some problems their freedom
might cause to a Turkey nearly forty times Israel's
size in territory and over eleven times its size in
population...and with the same 80% to 20% mix of
potential "headaches."
There's no defense for this. An ex-State Department
career person contacted me after one of my earlier
articles. In our subsequent correspondence, he told
me to just accept the fact that the Kurds will never
be allowed their state...while attacking me, of
course, for my reservations over what State has in
store for Israel. He even brought up the subject of
"dual loyalty." I asked him if he would say that to
some 60 million or so -- if not more -- Christians
who are saying the same thing that I am...No
answer...Pathetic.
Regardless of America's good intentions (and we were
correct in ridding the land of Adolf, I mean
Saddam), it's likely that Iraq will become even more
of a mess -- kind of like Yugoslavia with the death
of Tito, though I really don't like mentioning him
and Saddam in the same breath -- and more costly
over time. Entrenched Arab attitudes -- centuries
old -- are not likely to change regarding their
relationships with their conquered, non-Arab
populations. Any of the latter that have not agreed
to the forced Arabization process -- be they Kurd,
Jew, Berber, Black African, Copt, Lebanese, etc.
have had major problems to contend with...often
deadly ones.
Asking Kurds to forsake the creation of their one,
sole state for the pipedream of an egalitarian Iraq
is a travesty of justice if ever there existed one.
When America leaves Iraq, as it will sooner or
later, the backlash will once again fall on the
people who supported us the most...the Kurds. We
left them holding the bag too many times already
before.
Think about how the course of history may have been
changed if an Israel existed prior to the Holocaust.
You read about the problems with the Shi'a above.
Saddam's regime was largely Sunni supported. Abu
Musab Zarqawi, of al-Qaida fame, wrote a letter that
was recently intercepted by U.S. forces in Iraq.
He's the guy who is believed responsible for the
recent slaughter of Shi'a in Baghdad and Karbala. In
the letter he listed four enemies. America, of
course, was No. 1... No. 2 is the Kurds. Here's what
he says about them: They are "...a lump in the
throat and a thorn whose time to be clipped has yet
to come."
Now, while Foggy Bottom demands yet another state
for Arabs and the Arafatian/Hamas good cop/bad cop
team, think about what direction you want the
greatest country on Earth -- America -- to follow
regarding the fate of our strangely loyal friends,
the Kurds.
We can be better than what some in leadership roles
would have us be.
Copyright by Gerald A. Honigman
http://www.michnews.com
Top |
® 