|
Senator Clinton Writes Kurds Out of Her
Script
4.7.2007
By Martin Zehr
|
|
|
|
July
4, 2007
As candidates prepare for the primaries and caucuses
for the Presidential election in 2008, there has
been a lot of talk regarding the war in Iraq. There
has become a focus on opposition to the war within
both parties. There has also been some distinct
positions developed by particular candidates and
parties. What has been missing is a separate
conversation regarding future American policy
vis-a-vis the emerging Kurdish nation. At some
point, this will move from the position of
candidates to the position of the elected President
of the United States, so there is a need for the
public to review the candidates' position before the
election and not just accept it afterwards without
any say in its formulation.
In the Democratic Party, there has been very little
interchange publicly by the candidates that would
demonstrate a policy proposal that would be
implemented upon election. It seems as though all
the Democratic candidates have been given one script
and while reciting from this script a new sequence
of events has arisen. But, instead of realizing the
script does not address the change in circumstances,
they continue to read from it in utter disregard of
what is taking place in the real world. There has
been no recent conversations on the Turkish
provocations in the Kurdish Autonomous Region and
the accusations that it has level against KRG
President Barzani. There have been no proposals
regarding the transformation of the peshmerga into a
national defense forse by the KRG. There have been
no discussion of the Kirkuk Referendum as an
instrumentality of expressing the will of the
Kurdish people and nation.
The two leading contenders for the Democratic
nomination, Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama have
very distinct positions but it has been a rare
occasion when the word Kurd has ever been spoken by
them. In a newspaper interview published in the New
York Times on March 14, 2007, Senator Hillary
Clinton was quoted as saying: "I think we have a
vital national security interest and obligation to
try to help the Kurds manage their various problems
in the north so that one of our allies, Turkey, is
not inflamed, and they are able to continue with
their autonomy. I think we have a vital national
security interest- if the Iraqis ever get their act
together- to continue to provide logistical support,
air support, training support. I don't know that
that is going to be feasible, but I would certainly
entertain it. And I think we have a vital national
security interest in trying to prevent Iran from
crossing the border and having too much influence
inside of Iraq." In this statement, Senator Clinton
seems to give equal weight to placating the Turkish
government as she does to supporting the Kurdish
Regional Government. It is not at all clear how she
would respond to a Turkish military incursion.
Neither does she specifically affirm the rights of
the Kurdish people, in light of the years of mass
murders, to independence.
In that interview, Senator Clinton did respond to
the issue of Kurdish autonomy in a negative manner
by presenting it as an Iraqi matter, rather than as
a Kurdish matter. She stated in the article: "Even
the partition idea that Les Gelb and Joe Biden and
others floated, well that's not for us to do
anymore. They're a sovereign government- we can't
walk in and say, O.K. divide it up, we're going to
move the Shiites here and the Sunnis there."
She did not address the possibility of a
post-occupation Iraqi government that forcibly
attempts to require Kurdish integration into a
strong centralized government in Baghdad and how the
U.S. might work to anticipate this possibility ahead
of time by positively promoting Kurdish autonomy.
Nor did she speak to the issue of the Kirkuk
Referendum scheduled for November. One writer in
reviewing the positions of the Islamic sects and
their political leadership indicated: "The Shia
religious parties may be allied to the Kurds in
order to form a government but they fear the
political damage among their own followers if they
are seen to be handing over Kirkuk to the Kurds."
There has been opposition among many of the Shi'a
leaders, including Moqtada al-Sadr to the intended
annexation of the Kurdish Autonomous Region by Shi'a
leaders. But, one fails to hear any mention of this
in Senator Clinton's current script.
One hears no mention of the potential strategic
significance of an independent Kurdistan in the
region, at least not from the Democratic candidates.
The general public does seem to grasp this.
"Ironically, the creation of the first
internationally recognized Kurdish state in Southern
Kurdistan is the best outcome for Turkey!" It does
seem as though non-candidate and former President
Bill Clinton does appreciate its regional role.
Former President Clinton stated: "... that the US
administration must protect Kurds from any external
attacks. He added that a possible Turkish military
operation into Southern Kurdistan would bring 'a
disaster' to the region... America should deploy its
troops in Iraq in Kurdistan and regions neighboring
Kurdistan. The troops to be deployed would prevent
Turkey from entering the region, thus helping to
protect Iraqi Kurds from external forces."
One sees the contradictions in these statements and
they clearly require clarification by Senator
Clinton. The issue at hand is not simply Senator
Clinton's peace plan for the region of South West
Asia, but it is also how openly the candidates have
presented their positions as something that the
American people can rally behind and support.
Clearly, the American people have expressed their
opposition to engaging in high-casualty scenarios in
the heart of Baghdad. Just as clearly have the
American people become more aware of the
nation-building project of the Kurdish people
through stories in the mainstream media. It is
needed for candidates, like Senator Clinton, to
address the substantive political issues of the
future.
We should not presume a positive Turkish role in the
region and need to be wary about their deliberate
hostile actions that could have profound
repercussions for the future. Likewise, in
developing a policy toward Iran there needs to be
some linkage with the Islamic Republic of Iran
accepting non-interference in the affairs of other
nations and respect for the national rights of the
Kurdish population currently under their
jurisdiction. It is a regional re-configuration that
is taking place and the policies that will have the
greatest positive impact will be based on a
recognition of the people and nations that have
demonstrated a national will of their own for
independence and freedom.
Martin Zehr is an American political writer whose
article on the Kirkuk Referendum has been printed by
the Kurdish Regional Government.
theconservativevoice com
Top |
Kurd Net
does not take credit for and is not responsible for the content of news
information on this page
|
® 