Khaled Salih,
A senior lecturer in Middle East politics at the
University of Southern Denmark |
My close friend, a
veteran politician, told me over the telephone that
it was very unfortunate I couldn't be in Kurdistan
on October 15, when people throughout Iraq voted for
their constitution for the first time in the history
of the country. Though he understood that I tried
but did not manage to get there before the borders
were closed 24 hours prior to the voting, my friend
wanted to remind me of a conversation we had in
1989.
It was a tragic time for the people of Kurdistan.
Only a few years later would the outside world learn
of the scale of destruction Saddam Hussein's regime
wreaked on Kurdistan. While in an Iranian refugee
camp, my friend told me in a telephone conversation
that "the Kurds in Iraq will have the same fate as
the Armenians of Turkey and the Jews of Europe."
Those who survive Saddam's genocidal attacks, he
added, must either leave Kurdistan or remain under
occupation until they die. |
|
Only when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and the
US-led coalition threw Iraq's army out of that
country could I understand the destructive nature of
Saddam's regime: more than 4,000 Kurdish villages
were destroyed; as many as 183,000 people
disappeared in Saddam's infamous genocidal assault
against the Kurds, known as Anfal (the name of a
Quran verse justifying the killing and looting of
infidels). Life was abandoned in the countryside;
vast areas were mined; animals and people were
killed if they stayed in the villages; entire
villages were bombed with chemical and biological
weapons; water springs, the traditional lifelines of
every village in Kurdistan, were sealed; people were
traumatized. The outside world was busy mediating
between Saddam Hussein and Ayatollah Khomeini to
stop the Iraq-Iran war.
A few years later, thanks to the no-fly zone
established by the anti-Saddam coalition after 1991,
Kurds went back to their region to rebuild their
shattered lives, land and economy. Today Kurdistan,
where the multinational forces are more than
welcome, is prosperous and secure and is often
called "the other Iraq". In Kurdistan people are
embracing change and building their own future while
cautiously watching the trial of Saddam Hussein and
his immediate associates. My friend wanted me to
share his joy at casting a vote rather than a bomb
to determine Kurdistan's future relations with the
rest of Iraq by saying yes to the draft
constitution. It is a dramatic change. In the latter
half of the 1980s, Kurdistan and its population were
threatened with extinction. In mid-October 2005, the
people of Kurdistan voted overwhelmingly in favor of
a new constitution.
It is easy to understand the joy of my friend and
most of Kurdistan's population regarding the content
of the constitution and the outcome of the
referendum: 78 percent of the votes in favor. In
1992, when the Kurdistan parliament decided that the
future relationship of the region with the rest of
Iraq would be on a federal basis, none could
envisage that Saddam Hussein and his regime would be
removed and the political system of Iraq
restructured and redesigned the way we have seen
since mid-2003.
With the endorsement of the constitution, Kurdistan
is now a constituent unit in a federalizing Iraq
with its own law-making body, government,
responsibility for its own internal security, and
control over any future development of its oil and
gas fields. What is more, the constitution has
provided a legal temporal framework for the de-Arabization
of Kirkuk and other Arabized regions, a process that
will be concluded by the end of 2007 with a
referendum over their final status. In addition,
Kurdistan's laws and decisions are legalized,
providing a retroactive acceptance of the region's
existence and legal framework. If any constitutional
amendment is decided by the Iraqi parliament due to
be elected in mid-December 2005, it will require
Kurdistan's consent if proposed changes have any
effect on Kurdistan and its authority.
Most crucially of all, any future movement of Iraq's
army into Kurdistan is conditioned on the consent of
Kurdistan's president and parliament.
Psychologically, in view of Kurdistan's past
experience with the Iraqi army and successive
governments, this is the most important achievement
in restructuring and federalizing Iraq. If the rest
of Iraq chooses an Islamic orientation in terms of
political institutions and individual, women's and
minority rights, Kurdistan can still keep its
emerging democratic and secular trends by opting out
in those specific cases or enacting more protective
and liberal laws in the Kurdistan parliament.
In the coming months and years, the power balance
will shift from constitution-writing to
interpretation and practical institution-building.
This will require careful consideration about
fundamental choices. As the current constitution
makes clear, the purpose of this fundamental law is
to keep the country together on the basis of a
voluntary union. If the constitution is violated,
Kurdistan will no longer be obliged to adhere to it.
That is why the coming months and years will be
decisive in Iraq in terms of the powers of the
government, limitations on its institutions, and the
way government organizations operate. A functioning,
federal and democratic Iraq does not need to pose
any threat to Kurdistan. But a failed or militarized
Iraq will.- Published 27/10/2005 ©
www.bitterlemons-international.org
Khaled Salih is a senior lecturer in Middle East
politics at the University of Southern Denmark. He
is coeditor (with Brendan O'Leary and John McGarry)
of The Future of Kurdistan in Iraq (University of
Pennsylvania Press, 2005).
Top |
® 