|
Behind Michael Rubin's Rhetoric
31.1.2008
By Azad Aslan
|
|
|
|
January 31, 2008
In his widely read article, "Is Iraqi Kurdistan a
Good Ally?" Michael Rubin deserves critical
attention as the article touches upon some of the
most strategic points considered decisive for the
future and interests of the Kurdish nation.
The central argument that Rubin raises in his
article is his doubt about the long-term U.S. and
southern (Iraqi) Kurdish relations and alliance.
Rubin develops his suspicion by referring to the
troubled relations between the Kurds and Turkey and
the Kurdish leaders' stiffened resistance against
the Turkish threat and involvement in Kurdish
affairs. While Rubin blames Kurdistan President
Massoud Barzani of being antagonistic toward Turkey,
he makes false allegation against Barzani by
accusing him of supporting and assisting PKK against
the Turkish military.
He explicitly criticizes the southern Kurds for
being nationalists and aspiring to national rights.
He states that "maps sold in the shadow of the KRG
Parliament show a greater Kurdistan Region
stretching well into Turkey. Kurdish newspapers
refer to Iraqi Kurdistan as South Kurdistan,
implicitly laying claim to southeastern Turkey as
North Kurdistan. It is this tendency to exert
populist claims across borders that makes Iraqi
Kurdistan a force for instability,www.ekurd.net
not an anchor for
security." For Rubin then, the main source of the
problem for any long-term, strategic U.S.-Kurdish
relations is due to southern Kurds' determination to
stand for their national rights. Here is where Rubin
misses the main point and, in spite of being an
expert on the Middle East, Rubin demonstrates his
shallow understanding and trivial insight into
Turkish politics and the history of Kurdish
nationalism.
Rubin doesn't realize that long-term reconciliation
between southern Kurds and the Turkish Republic is
impossible. Formation and establishment of the
Turkish Republic is essentially based on anti-Kurdism.
The eight decades of Turkish anti-Kurdish policy
holds no significance for Rubin. Survival of
artificial construction of Turkish national identity
and the Republic itself depends on continuation of
oppressive status of millions of Kurds in North
Kurdistan, or as Rubin would like us to call it,
southeast Turkey. Political gain in southern
Kurdistan in that sense is detrimental for the
Turkish strategic interests. The neoconservative
mentality of Rubin can't see this obvious fact.
Rubin blames Kurdistan President Barzani, saying he
supports the PKK. "He (Barzani) tells U.S. diplomats
that the PKK threat would disappear if only Ankara
offered greater concessions in terms of amnesty,
broadcasting, and constitutional reforms, while at
the same time encouraging PKK leaders to continue
their attacks and, indeed, facilitating their
terrorism." Barzani is right to argue that the
solution to the PKK question is not a military but a
political one. Should Turkey reform and democratize
its political establishment on the issue of the
Kurdish national question, provide space for Kurds
to enjoy their national rights, including right to
self-determination,www.ekurd.net
then there wouldn't be
any reason for military conflict. Rubin, however, is
absolutely incorrect by accusing southern Kurdish
authorities of encouraging PKK military activities.
The PKK's misguided and petty military confrontation
with the Turkish military harms the Kurds more than
anyone else.
It is no big secret now that the PKK organization,
or at least a strong group within it, is manipulated
by the Turkish military and civil intelligence
forces. I strongly suggest Rubin to follow Ergenekon
case in Turkey. The US administration and Rubin
himself know better than anyone else who the real
forces behind the PKK are. It is not the KDP that
encourages PKK military activities, but ironically
it is the Turkish military that benefits more from
the PKK.
Rubin exaggerates the level of corruption, misuse of
authority, and nepotism in southern Kurdistan to
legitimize his view on the sustainability of
Kurdish-U.S. relations. Nobody can deny that there
is corruption in Kurdistan or misuse of authority or
nepotism. These are unfortunately becoming a main
façade of Kurdish society and politics. These facts,
however, are not unique to Kurdistan alone. It is
part of the life of Middle Eastern countries,
including Turkey, which Rubin explicitly praises
ever so.
Rubin's rhetoric can't be treated as an American
intellectual misconception of Kurdish politics. It
indicates a far deeper issue than an individual
case. Rubin's open anti-Kurdish position underlines
a wider conflict or contradiction between U.S.
policymakers on the possible path that the U.S. must
follow in the Middle East and Central Asia. The
diametrically opposed and conflicting interests of
Turkey and Kurdistan, one way or another, would
force the U.S. to make a decision between them.
The southern Kurdish authorities' slackness to
reform the Kurdish political, economic, and social
establishments and to reduce the level of
corruption, misuse of authority, and nepotism
provide ample opportunities to some circles within
the U.S. department who favor Turkey.
Southern Kurdistan is a field of experimentation not
only for Kurdish nationalism but also for other
regional and international powers. Kurds have no
choice but to complete this experiment with success.
The way through this is radical and rapid
reformation of Kurdish political establishment
combined with further and more genuine
democratization. This must go hand in hand with
providing people in Kurdistan equal opportunities in
economic, social, and political affairs.
It may be true that the Kurds are not sophisticated
enough to grasp the breadth of Turkish-US relations,
as Rubin arrogantly puts it, but people like Rubin
must understand that the Kurds have national dignity
and pride not to bow for Turkish threats even if the
US stands behind Turkey.
kurdishglobe net
Top |
Kurd Net
does not take credit for and is not responsible for the content of news
information on this page
|
® 