|
Today
the Iraqi people are scheduled to receive a draft
constitution to approve or reject by popular
referendum. The U.S. government has been preaching
for years now that the new Iraq should be one that
respects the rights of all citizens, and does not
oppress anyone based on ethnicity, religious
affiliation or gender. If the final constitution is
not significantly adjusted, oppression is not only
allowed but is expressly called for.
The Kurds are being asked to pay with their freedom
for being our staunchest ally. And the Kurdish women
under this new constitution would suffer a second
loss of freedom simply because of their gender.
In the first phases of the war, U.S. Special Forces
along with the Kurdish fighters began the ground
assault to expel the forces of Saddam Hussein and
those of Ansar al-Islam, the al Qaeda affiliate
group in Iraq. At the time, assurances were given to
the Kurds that the pseudo-independent republic they
had established over the last 12 years would remain
the democratic institution it had become. The Kurds
were assured that they would not live under tyranny
and that their achievements would not be rolled
back. The international community must act to
pressure the drafters of the constitution to
enshrine the rights of the Kurds, or all of the good
work and feelings will be lost.
Since the first troops landed in Iraq, not one U.S.
or multinational soldier has died in the region
governed by the Kurdish authorities. In Baghdad,
simply being associated with the Americans can
result in kidnapping, torture and death. In
Kurdistan, the American flag is celebrated. Outside
of the "Green Zone," law is often meted out by
religious organizations without regard for due
process. In Kurdistan, law is handled by the secular
government, with established rules for fair trials.
Recent news from Baghdad has presented a
constitutional drafting committee that is deeply
divided over very serious issues: the role of
religion and the government, the rights of women and
ethnic minorities, the role of the central
government and others. The disagreements that are
emerging from the talks are serious and must be
addressed, but instead there has been a war of words
from the deliberations.
Amazingly, most of the blame for the contentious
nature of the talks has fallen on the Kurdish
representatives. They are accused of ignoring Islam
and even fomenting civil war. Nothing is further
from the truth. The Kurds wants to participate in a
secular government with respect for the rights of
its citizens and religions. What they are being
asked to concede to is a theocracy with oppression
of women and minorities as pillars of a new
government.
The Kurds have also been accused of fomenting
rebellion against a new government through their
demand for a federalist government, focusing power
in the hands of regional elected representatives
instead of a centralized power. This concept is not
new and should not be a surprise to anyone. From the
first meetings of the Iraqi opposition in 1992,
federalism was the main tenet of the system of
governance for a new Iraq.
Iraqis have a long history of too much power in too
few hands. The ethnic and religious bloodshed that
resulted from this power has forever scarred the
Iraqis, and makes the idea of federalism a good way
of building trust and respect among the different
peoples. Allowing groups to rule their own on a
day-to-day basis but still answer to the authority
of the central government of Iraq is a prudent and
mature solution to the prospect of ethnic and
religious strife.
When President Bush speaks about the beauty of
liberty and the basic human desire to be free, the
Kurdish people listen with their hearts. They know
well the oppression that befalls a minority
population that dares to seek out these ideals when
faced with tyranny.
During Saddam's reign, no one suffered worse than
the Kurdish people. But even as their women and
children were gassed and their men tortured, the
Kurds would not give up on their ideals. They share
those ideals with the American people, and because
they insist on their inclusion in the new Iraqi
constitution, they are demonized as a stubborn and
unwilling partner in the drafting process. In fact,
they are not unwilling, but they are stubborn. Any
constitution that marginalizes the Kurdish people
and attempts to roll back their hard-won liberties
will be strongly rejected.
The Kurds do not demand anything that the citizens
of this country do not enjoy daily. The freedoms
that are so often taken for granted in the United
States -- those of expression, religion, assembly
and press -- must be part of a new Iraq. Without
these rights and the freedom they ensure, Iraq may
well join its neighbor to the east and become an
unpredictable, anti-Western theocracy. That would be
bad for the United States geopolitically, but it is
unthinkable for the Kurdish people.
Kathryn Cameron Porter is President of the
Leadership Council for Human Rights.
www.washingtontimes.com
Top |
® 