|
Rogue Diplomats , By Ralph Peters
8.7.2005
|
|
|
|
CONDI Rice has an Iraq
problem. Among her subordinates. A new generation of
"Arabists" wants to write off our Kurdish allies for
the pipedream of winning friends among our enemies.
Our impressive secretary of state is proud to stand
up for freedom and human rights. But career elements
in her department, serving in Washington and Iraq,
have become a threat to the long-term success of
American policy - and to our values.
A generation ago, State's first Arabist clique
became so enraptured with their destructive
prescriptions for the Middle East that their bureau
had to be dismembered. But even before 9/11, a new
generation of Saudi-worshippers was rising in the
foreign-service ranks - and not just in the Bureau
of Near Eastern Affairs. Now they want to empower
Iraq's Arabs at Kurdish expense.
Consider a few examples of their malfeasance:
* Diplomats in the
(blessedly defunct) Coalition Provisional Authority
structured aid so the Kurdish north wouldn't "get
too far out in front" of Iraq's Arabs. They wanted
to undercut Iraq's one success story to lavish
resources on the country's failures in order to
achieve a bizarre neo-socialist parity. So our aid
went overwhelmingly to the Arabs - but the Arabs
kept on blowing up pipelines and sending us the
bill, while the Kurds went on building their future.
* If the administration
wanted to show how much better life is since
Saddam's fall, a senior leader could have visited
Suleimaniye, a city far safer than Washington, D.C.
But our diplomats in the Green Zone and Foggy Bottom
don't want attention focused on the Kurds. So
instead of images of progress, we get Groundhog Day
in Baghdad - complete with carnage clips - every
time a VIP does a fly-in.
* Recently, State
Department apparatchiks in Iraq concocted an
"internal" m essage written to be leaked. Referring
to joint U.S.-Kurdish efforts, it contained
viciously exaggerated claims that Kurdish
authorities "kidnapped" opponents. Supposedly
classified, it was handed to the media in a
disinformation effort.
Our diplomats expect concessions from the Kurds on
everything from federalism to the status of the
Kurdish city of Kirkuk and its oilfields. The Kurds
are just too uppity for foreign-service types more
comfortable with Middle-Eastern basket cases - or
who grew too chummy with their wealthy hosts in the
Persian Gulf.
Doubtless, our errant diplomats conceive of
themselves as hard-headed and practical, viewing the
Kurds as a nuisance that mustn't stand in the way of
improved relations with Arabs in Iraq and elsewhere.
They care nothing for human rights, freedom or
democracy. They want to play Nathaniel of Arabia or
Beth of Baghdad, to rescue Arab civilization. Good
luck.
Why betray America's noble tradition of standing up
for the little guy - to which we had almost
returned? Why reinforce the impression that
Washington betrays its friends in favor of its
enemies? Why pander to Saddam's faithful or the
sponsors of 9/11? Our military has a positive,
experience-based view of the Kurds. And the Kurds
have many friends in the United States. Still, our
rogue diplomats (who really want to be French) could
easily push Iraq into civil strife or even ignite a
greater regional conflict. The Kurds have fought for
their freedom before. If necessary, they'll fight
for it again.
There is one great test of our fairness toward our
only true allies in Iraq: the city of Kirkuk.
Indisputably Kurdish in heritage, Kirkuk suffered
under Saddam. He killed or drove out Kurds,
allotting their houses to Arab supporters of his
regime from elsewhere in Iraq. Now the Kurds have
returned. And they want to live in the homes their
families occupied for centuries. Victims of ethnic
cleansing themselves, the Kurds have no wish to
violate the human rights of others. They support
generous relocation programs for Saddam's favored
Arabs. And they want to live in peace with Kirkuk's
native Turkmen and Arab minorities. All the Kurds
want is justice.
But Iraq's Sunni Arabs want to keep Kirkuk. Because
of its oilfields. They view the city's potential
wealth as a means to regain leverage over the Kurds
and other Iraqis.
Iraq's Shi'a Arabs don't want the Kurds to control
the oil revenue, either.
Although the Shi'a control vast oil deposits in the
country's south, they want the oil money from the
Kirkuk fields to go directly to Baghdad. A fair
share of Iraq's oil income would give the Kurds too
much autonomy. The Shi'a hope to rule all of Iraq,
just as the Sunni Arabs did before them.
Identifying with the Arabs, our diplomats also dread
the thought of a free, democratic Kurdistan with
sufficient revenue to survive without begging from
Baghdad. They not only want to keep Iraq whole,
they're anxious to see it remain an Arab state.
To please the Saudis. And the Egyptians. And the
Gulf Arabs. And all our other Arab "friends" who
send Islamist terrorists to Iraq. We need to return
to our fundamental ideals. And to common sense. The
Kurds are the most progressive group in the Middle
East. They're not Islamist fanatics. They're not
more Middle-Eastern fascists. They respect their
political leaders. They support free media and
secular education. They even believe that women have
rights, too.
The Kurdish north of Iraq is the Middle East we say
we want. We need to support it, not undercut its
progress in a mad attempt to please delinquent
Arabs.
Yes, we want good relations with Iraq's Arabs. And
with Arabs across the region. But it can't be bought
at the expense of the only true allies we have in
the Middle East.
Ralph Peters' next book, "New Glory: Expanding
America's Global Supremacy," is due out in August
www.nypost.com
Top |
Kurd Net
does not take credit for and is not responsible for the content of news
information on this page
|
® 