|
Comments on Michael Rubin's "Is Iraqi
Kurdistan a good ally?"
7.2.2008
By Bilind Amedi
|
|
|
 |
February 7, 2008
The situation in Iraqi Kurdistan has always been a
relative matter. With Saddam Hussein in power, Iraqi
Kurdistan was always thriving relative to Baghdad
despite the internal Kurdish strife between KDP and
PUK. Shortly after the liberation of Iraq in April
9th 2003, many reports surfaced about the poor
administrative situation in Iraqi Kurdistan. With
the emergences of the Sunni insurgency and the
destabilization of the security situation in central
Iraq soon after the liberation, the reports were
sinking and Iraqi Kurdistan became the success story
of the liberation of Iraq. In the light of relative
improvement in the security situation in Iraq,
reports about corruption and chaos in Iraqi
Kurdistan are beginning to appear again on
international media outlets.
Targeted without distinction, the Kurds have
suffered many genocidal campaigns for ethnic reasons
in the hands of the Iraqi government. Therefore, it
is not surprising to see Kurds blindly following
their leaders and even rejecting constructive
criticism when targeted at their leadership. They
envision the return of Anfals and chemical attacks
as alternatives to their leadership, a fact that
encourages the same leadership to maintain the
status quo and dismiss reforms calls.
When reading Mr. Rubin’s “Is Iraqi Kurdistan a good
ally?” it is not overly difficult to note Mr.
Rubin’s bias toward the Turkish military
establishment. Yet, we can not afford to ignore the
report because of Mr. Rubin’s bias, for the report
contains many inconvenient facts which can not be
denied but effectively handled.
Kurdish Elections
Mr. Rubin questions the integrity of the elections
in Iraqi Kurdistan and suggests that Massoud Barzani
would be winning the majority of the votes
regardless of anti-fraud measures, as it is the case
with the final results of elections in Syria and
Egypt. In the regional elections of 1992, Massoud
Barzani won only 47% of the total votes and failed
to win the 51% majority to become regional president
in Kurdistan.
However, what was backfiring about the Kurdish
elections is the closed list voting system. Each
party slated into their list the maximum number of
candidates based on the seats of the parliament. For
example, if the parliament contained 100 seats, each
party presented a list composed of 100 candidates.
The parliamentarians were chosen from party lists in
proportion to the number of votes each party won in
the elections,www.ekurd.net
and the remaining
candidates of each list were slated into reserve
lists. If a parliamentarian did not follow their
party agenda, they would be expelled and replaced by
a candidate on the reserve list. The system of
voting followed in the Kurdish elections was emptied
of its democratic content and was very backstabbing
to the democratization of the region. In such a
system, parliamentarians do not need to ensure the
needs of their constituents and gain popularity to
run in the elections again. They merely need to
learn the art of adulation to advertise their
allegiance to their party leader to gain their
parliamentary seats in the following term or to be
awarded a higher position.
It is understandable to adopt the closed-list system
when there exists democratic institutions within
parties and party leaders are bound to limited
authority. However, the president of a political
party in the Middle East is the ultimate decision
maker of the party. His authority is boundless and
can change the platform at his whim, even if the new
platform contradicts the fundamental principals of
the party. Unless their lives come to an end through
death or assassination, party presidents retain
their post and do not resign. This is a fact typical
to the majority of the powerful political parties in
the Middle East, whether in power or oppositional,
modern or traditional, rightist or leftist. Thus,
parliamentarians solely represent their party
leaders. Unfortunately, the same voting system was
adopted in the Iraqi elections after the liberation
in 2003. In stead of pressuring Iraqi political
parties to adopt a direct voting system, the United
States praised the Iraqi elections. I fail to
understand how could Iraq be a model for the new
Middle East while adopting such system of voting?
US-Turkey Relations
Contrary to what Mr. Rubin suggests, it is in Iraqi
Kurdistan’s interest for Turkey to have friendly
relations with the United States. What concerns us
is when their relations are limited to only the US
government and Turkish military establishment. In
this case, both Kurds and Turks will fall as victim
of this limitation. In stead, we would like
US-Turkey relations to take root within the Turkish
society, a move that would enable the Turkish
society to adopt similar values of the American
culture. Further, we hope that all the nations in
the world press for friendly relations with the
United States based on shared beliefs in modern
values of the western civilization, such as: human
rights, democracy, freedom of religion…etc.
In a referendum held in Puerto Rico in 1998 to
decide the political status of the Island in
relations to the United States. Since the United
States is a modern and democratic nation, the
majority voted against statehood and succession from
the United States but preferred to maintain the
commonwealth status of the Island. I wish to see the
Turkish society adopting the values of the American
culture and western civilization, and the Turkish
government allows similar referendum for the Kurds,
where Kurds would reject statehood and prefer living
within a truly democratic Turkey where minority
rights are guaranteed.
Instigated by neighboring governments, the presence
of PKK in Iraqi Kurdistan has always been a source
of instability in the region, a safe-haven guarded
by the United States. Mr. Rubin suggests that
Massoud Barzani, “encourages PKK to continue their
attacks,” on Turkey,www.ekurd.net
as if Massoud Barzani
leads the military wing of PKK. In fact, KDP has
waged bloody wars against the presence of PKK in
Iraqi Kurdistan and cost KDP the lives of many of
its militants. Massoud Barzani does not prefer to
repeat the same scenario but perhaps wishes to have
enough force to prevent the PKK presence in Iraqi
Kurdistan because PKK is a major Kurdish party and a
potential alternative to both KDP and PUK in the
region despite the arrest of its leader Ocalan. Its
danger as an alternative to KDP and PUK will fade
should PKK decides to disarm itself and resorts to
political struggle within Turkey. Such a move could
benefit the Kurdish and Turkish people because the
Turkish military establishment has been a major
beneficiary of PKK’s armed struggle and used it t
tarnish the image of Kurds and their legitimate
national demands globally.
But if Turkey, with its entire military might, has
failed to eliminate PKK for over two decades, how
could Massoud Barzani eliminate PKK by his
“militias?”
Rubin suggest that “Barzani wants American forces
stationed in his territory for the same reason Hamas
and Fatah demand European monitors along Gaza's
frontier with Israel…” Firstly, Turkey isn’t as
democratic as Israel, so its retaliation would only
target militants as it is the case with an Israeli
retaliation. Secondly, while Hamas calls for the
destruction of Israel, all the Kurdish parties in
Iraqi Kurdistan recognize Turkey and its current
borders but reject Turkish interference in Iraqi
affairs. The Kurds want a U.S. military base in
their region because it will further security and
stability in their region and prevent the genocidal
wars and chemical attacks against them. It will also
revitalize the economy and encourage foreign
investments in the region.
Corruption in Kurdistan
I refuse to deny the existence of rampant corruption
in Iraqi Kurdistan because it exceeds mankind
recognition, and the leadership of KDP and PUK are
solely responsible for this dilemma. I will return
to this subject in the next account, but Mr. Rubin
suggests that, “both Barzani and Talabani have
amassed fortunes in excess of $2 billion and $400
million, respectively.” Mr. Rubin has rightfully
citied this information from "The Middle East's Real
Bane: Corruption," Daily Star (Beirut), November 15,
2005,” itself an article by Mr. Rubin. When revewing
the article in the Daily Star, Mr. Rubin never
provided any reference to this misappropriational
figures. We hope that Mr. Rubin can provide to us a
concrete source for this information.
The author Bilind Amedi is a Kurd from Iraqi
Kurdistan (southern Kurdistan). The article is
written in Arabic and translated to English. You may
reach the author via email at:
independkurdish@gmail.com
Top |
Kurd Net
does not take credit for and is not responsible for the content of news
information on this page
|
® 