While the Kurds continue
to reaffirm their commitment to ensuring victory in
Iraq, and to assure their American friends and
neighbors that they will not break away from Iraq,
they cannot be so sure that Iraq won’t break away
from them. Would you blame them for going their own
way?
Optimism is a force multiplier, or so they say. On
15 December, 2005, most following or involved in
rebuilding Iraq were optimistic, if not ecstatic. In
unprecedented fashion, millions of Iraqis, from all
walks of life braved the threats from terrorists and
voted to determine their destiny. However, for many
of us who woke up optimistic on 16 December, reality
is beginning to settle and we are starting to
question our optimism.
Despite the efforts of the Kurdish leadership,
several months after the elections, we still have no
government, and sectarian violence continues. Iraq
is polarizing, and has been for many decades. |
Qubad Talabani, representative of the Kurdistan
Regional Government to the US |
|
The mere fact that 87 percent of the voters in
December voted along ethnic or sectarian lines
highlights a new reality: Iraq today stands divided;
divided among communities who find it difficult to
reach beyond their ethnic or sectarian boundaries to
come up with a national strategy that deals with the
challenges that lay ahead. This division is to some
the doomsday scenario; the balkanization of Iraq.
Ethnic and sectarian tensions have plagued Iraq
since its founding. While nostalgic Iraqis from a
bygone era will talk about the good old days, few
Shiite Iraqis (Diaspora excluded) may talk of such a
peaceful co-existence, very few Kurds, if any, will.
Given the lack of a political order, and a trusted
security apparatus, Arabs in Iraq are increasingly
defining themselves as Shiite or Sunnis. They feel
that it will be their sectarian affiliation that
will protect them, not the State of Iraq. This
polarization is the result of the failure of Iraq,
since its inception, to rule justly; a failure
culminating with Saddam Hussein. No one has done
more harm to Iraq’s unity and identity than Saddam.
This will be the legacy he leaves behind. While
there may be many to blame for today’s polarization,
one cannot blame the Kurds.
Kurdish leaders have contributed more to the cause
of a united Iraq than any other. During the many
deliberations over the past three years, it has been
the Kurdish leadership consistently brokering
agreements between the perpetually bickering Sunnis
and Shiites. Kurds have led the effort to ensure
that all communities remain fully engaged in the
political process by seeking to enshrine the
doctrine of “consensus and compromise” while
upholding the protection of citizens’ civil
liberties. The Kurds, the so-called “separatists”
ironically, are those fighting hardest to save Iraq.
Will we succeed in creating trust between Iraq’s
community leaders? Can the Kurds continue to engage
Sunnis and Shiites before the increasing sectarian
violence escalates into civil war?
Given the obstacles forming a national unity
government, and the spate of sectarian violence
following the terrorist attack against the Askari
mosque in Samarra, optimism is hard to muster. But
all may not be lost. Recognizing that for western
policy makers, and Iraqi intellectuals, this reality
of failing to create an ethnic-less or
sectarian-less Iraq is a bitter pill to swallow;
acknowledging, and more importantly, navigating this
reality, could result in the only possible way that
“Victory in Iraq” could be attained. Enshrining the
federal solution outlined in Iraq’s permanent
constitution, which allows for the creation of
strong regions, loosely held together by a central
government with clearly defined competencies; and
coming up with tangible mechanisms for equitably
distribution of the country’s oil wealth, could be
the only way of addressing the insecurities of
Iraq’s three main communities while ensuring Iraq
remain a unified country.
Even Sunni Arabs, long time opponents of federalism,
are starting to see its merits, as they understand
that it could be their only protection against the
imposition of policies by a Shiite-led central
government. Division in Iraq however may not
necessarily come as a result of a political
compromise, rather through the escalation of
sectarian violence, leading to a full scale civil
war. In the case of a civil war; where communities
fight one and-other and the state institutions break
down, we can expect the end of Iraq as we know it.
In such a scenario, the Kurdish leadership must
protect the hard earned gains we have achieved over
the past 15 years.
We must defend our citizens from domestic and
international threats. We must continue to improve
on our governance and work hard to garner the
support of our population. We must prevent Kirkuk
from falling into chaos, and into the hands of
anti-democratic forces. But the biggest challenge
would be to do all this while keeping the support of
the United States, and alleviating the fears and
concerns of our neighbors. Such a scenario, while at
this stage unlikely, could be possible if we fail to
bring about a government of national unity – a true
national unity, not a phony unity that ignores the
reality of Iraq’s ethnic and sectarian make-up, or
if we have another major attack on a revered holy
site. While we must continue to pursue our current
path to build a federal democracy in Iraq, it would
be unwise not to prepare for every eventuality; for
a civil war will undoubtedly lead to the break-up of
the country.
Therefore we must begin to break the taboo and
address the possibility of Kurdish independence.
While we continue to reaffirm our commitment to
ensuring victory in Iraq, and assure our American
friends, and our brothers in our neighborhood that
we will not break away from Iraq, we cannot be so
sure that Iraq won’t break away from us. If that
were to happen, given all that we have done to try
to keep the country unified, no one should blame us
for going our own way.
soma-digest.com
Top |
® 