|
The
matter is not related to "the rights of the Kurds
come first" as in the light of Barzani's situations,
it became clear that the Kurds have exploited the
moment of drafting the constitution to inform their
partners that they do not want to live in Iraq, but
are seeking to make use of the destruction of Iraq
to gather all the elements that allow a Kurdish
state to be created, survive and guarantee its
remain. All other Iraqis are supposed to approve
that, no matter how hard or impossible it is.
The only virtue of Barzani's might be that he is
frank and clear. He also arises form his duty in
finding a historical settlement that gains the
rights of the Kurds, as they have been exposed to
injustice and oppression for a long time. He might
even be putting everyone right against the
disclosure of their inner intentions and the reality
of their aims. Nevertheless, there is a great
difference between a settlement inside Iraq and a
settlement at the expense of Iraq; if the objective
was a "united Iraq" or "democratic federal united
Iraq', as expressed by Zalmay Khalilzad, the
representative of the American occupation. As
regards the opening of regional borders, this would
at least move the region about one century backwards
and would arouse disputes that would result in
complications and wars.
Undoubtedly, the Kurdish people need justice and the
right to determine destiny deserves to be
crystallized in an independent Kurdish state. For
this state to survive there should be regional and
international accord that it is allowed. The accord
here should mean the commitment to the sovereignty
of this state and the sanctity of its lands and
borders. Nevertheless, the interpretation of that
also suggests the right of deciding on destiny by
the Kurds in Turkey, Iran and Syria. Falling under
occupation might have nominated Iraq to be the
pioneer country in designating parts of its lands
for the future "Kurdish state", even if it was
forced to do so. Then, what about the other
countries? What does it mean that the Iraqi Kurds
would have their own state, unless it is a basis for
a Kurdish state that would include all Kurds and
allow them for interaction and communication, on the
human and geographical levels? Based on the
principle, or incident, of this supposed
designation, how would we rule out that the file of
Iraqi-Kuwaiti borders would not be re-opened, etc?
These possibilities remind of many American
statements that were circulated immediately before
the war on Iraq and have continued to spread during
the first months after the invasion and occupation.
Would "the re-mapping out of the region" be a legal
question, as what Barzani is discussing could have
various interpretations? Nevertheless, it actually
means that "separation" is the strategic objective
for Iraqi Kurds.
The reality is that you need extraordinary
flexibility to convince the others that you are
demanding for you rights on bases of your remaining
to live with them in the same country and on the
same lands, and meanwhile, that you need these full
effective rights as you are preparing for separation
from them. This explosive target should give
priority for the separation over the anticipated
objective of the constitution. This means to draft
an agreement document that is just to all the
constituents of the Iraqi people; first through
respecting their rights and second through
specifying their duties and responsibilities towards
the country.
While the dates of the coming Iraqi events, from
achieving the constitution to preparing for the
elections, it appears that the previous period was
wasted on lying. It even appears clearer that those
disagreeing parties have practically exerted efforts
to give priority to the alternative of dividing Iraq
more than their eagerness to maintain its unity.
When Barzani says, "If they desire us to participate
in the reconstruction of the new Iraq, they should
secure all the rights of our people", he is
neglecting that he is demanding for "rights" that
would basically explode "the new Iraq". When
Ayatollah Ali Al Sestani says that he is in favor of
"a general federation" he, intentionally or
non-intentionally, opens the door for what is
currently called "The Shiite entity in the south".
If the people and their intentions have currently
reached this great extent of separations, then what
constitution are they talking about? There is no
surprise in what is happening. Each party has
participated in the war, on basis of his separate
agenda. The parties had no concepts of "a united
Iraq", but projects for separate states that suit
them. It is most probable that the power of American
power of war and occupation is not remote from the
separation project; even if it totally excluded it
in public at the beginning. Nevertheless, The US is
supporting and facilitating it in secrecy. The
Israeli interference in Iraq might have convinced
those who are still rejecting the separation project
in the American administration.
Al Hayat
Top |
® 
