Category: Iraq

  • Iraqi Sunnis Turn to Politics and Renew Strength

    Iraqi Sunnis Turn to Politics and Renew Strength

    18sunni.600 Jehad Nga for The New York Times Sheik Abdullah Humedi Ajeel al-Yawar, seen with his Arabian horses, mobilized tribes in January to help Sunni Arabs gain control of Nineveh’s provincial council.

    By CAMPBELL ROBERTSON and STEPHEN FARRELL Published: April 17, 2009

    RABIA, Iraq – Sheik Abdullah Humedi Ajeel al-Yawar says there is no hidden reason why he still flies the three-starred flag of the old Iraqi government from the towers and guard posts of his ranch near the Syrian border.

    Multimedia

    Iraq's Fault LineInteractive Graphic

    Iraq’s Fault Line

    0418 for clrSUNNImap The New York Times

    The Sunni political class has regained strength in Rabia.

    It is a practical matter, he explained. The Iraqi government has yet to come up with a permanent new design, so why change the flags until they do?

    But the sight of the flag and the confidence oozing from northern Iraq’s new Arab rulers send an unavoidable message: The old order has returned.

    In the first years after the invasion, Sunni Arabs, the minority that long ran Iraq and who make up the majority in the northwest, mostly stayed away from politics. Many joined or supported the insurgency as the American-allied Kurds took power by default, giving them a political and military ascendance out of all proportion to their numbers in Nineveh Province.

    But in the prelude to Nineveh’s provincial council elections in January, the tribes of the countryside led by the nationally ambitious Sheik Abdullah, and the urban Sunni Arab elite led by a polished businessman from Mosul whose brother already sits in Parliament, came back with a vengeance.

    Riding a wave of resentment against the Kurds – and openly trumpeting influence with insurgents – they came to control Iraq’s second most populous province, thus overseeing not only regional decision-making, but also the coffers and patronage that go with it.

    The return of this Sunni political class, some of them suspected of ties with Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party, has come via the ballot box. But it prompts crucial questions: whether enfranchisement quickens ethnic healing, or whether the Sunni victors’ hard edge against the Kurds sets up future ethnic conflict.

    So far it does not look good. At the first Nineveh provincial council meeting on Sunday, the victorious Sunni list, Al Hadba, with 19 of 37 seats, froze the second-place Kurdish list out of all official positions.

    In return the Kurds, controlling 12 seats, threatened to boycott the council and even refuse to accept government services in areas where they dominate.

    The dispute has implications far beyond the northern fault line. Three hundred miles south in Baghdad, the central government led by Iraq’s majority Shiite Arabs must decide which presents the biggest threat: the political ambitions of Mr. Hussein’s once ruling Sunni Arab minority, or the territorial ambitions of the Kurdish minority who claim that some northern areas administered by Baghdad should rightfully be added to their three provinces, two of which border Nineveh.

    With national elections in less than 12 months, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, who has competing centrist and Islamist constituencies, must also decide how far he can take reconciliation with the former ruling Sunnis. Tension rose last week when one of Mr. Hussein’s former top deputies called for the toppling of Mr. Maliki’s government and for the outlawed Baath Party to retake control.

    American officials here see reasons for optimism, that people who might have used violence in the past have turned to politics. Lt. Col. Guy Parmeter, commander of the American forces in the center of Nineveh, said he felt that fighting among Al Hadba and opposing groups was now less likely.

    “I think that any conflict between them, they’re going to stay in the dialogue phase,” he said.

    American officials acknowledged that Al Hadba was heavily influenced by the Baath Party. Three potential Hadba candidates were disqualified for past associations with the party, and the list’s leaders assert that former Baathists should be included in the government, while conceding that the party should remain banned. Sheik Abdullah points out that the tribes, the source of his support, pre-date the country, never mind one party.

    Others, and not only Kurds, are wary of Nineveh’s new rulers. More than one Sunni Arab sheik accused Al Hadba of being in league with violent extremists.

    “When the election was in Mosul four years ago, when somebody went to vote, the Islamic State of Iraq cut off his hand,” said Sheik Massoud Suleiman al-Sadoon, a tribal leader in Zumar. “Why this time did all the bad men say ‘Vote for Al Hadba?’ ”

    In his office in Mosul, Al Hadba’s leader, Atheel al-Nujaifi – just before he was installed as Nineveh’s governor – spoke of a willingness to make overtures to insurgents, or as he put it, people “who oppose the political system and might commit some kind of violence,” although he drew the line at reaching out to religious extremists and criminals.

    The lack of violence on election day, he explained, was not only a result of a security lockdown. His party contacted “influential people,” he said, to ensure that votes would be cast peacefully.

    The Kurds mutter that Al Hadba’s proximity to extremists could render irrelevant its stated intentions to rule broadly. The party’s constituency, they allege, will force it to uphold the extreme elements of its leaders’ rhetoric.

    “They have to balance their position between the reality of the Iraqi government, and to take orders from the darkness, from the groups who voted for them, who asked people to vote for them,” said Khasro Goran, the head of the Kurdistan Democratic Party in Mosul.

    Kurdish political leaders argue further that the alliance of Arab tribal and urbane elite is a marriage of convenience arising from their shared antipathy to the Kurds.

    Mr. Nujaifi says that he has nothing against the Kurds and that he is not opposed to a federal solution to the question of Kurdish territorial claims. But he and Sheik Abdullah are unequivocal on one point: in an Arab-majority province with long-simmering land disputes, there is and will be no Kurdish land in Nineveh. But the coalition’s dynamic appears more complex than mere opposition to Kurdish expansionism.

    The near uniformity of the Sunni Arab vote in the north also comes from a sense, shared across ragged desert towns and mountain villages, that Kurdish rule failed in Nineveh – badly.

    Towns, only recently free of Sunni extremist control, have some of the worst rates of connection to the water network in Iraq, according to the United Nations. Electricity is lacking in most of the province, and unemployment is high.

    The severity of the problems is one reason Americans say Al Hadba will be forced to put pragmatism, and political survival, over ideology.

    Sheik Abdullah is frank about his readiness to further his already nascent ambitions into other provinces and dissolve Al Hadba if it does not deliver improvements. And Mr. Nujaifi’s campaign focused on installing competent administrators.

    Iraqis from the north, those from Mosul in particular, have long had a reputation for hardened survival instincts.

    “There isn’t a lot of change in Mosul society,” Mr. Nujaifi explained. “After we think that these problems are over, this society will return again as before. And that’s our image.”

    Atheer Kakan contributed reporting.

  • Abbas visits Iraq’s Kurdish region

    Abbas visits Iraq’s Kurdish region

    Mahmud Abbas (L) shakes hands with Massud Barzani
    Mahmud Abbas (L) shakes hands with Massud Barzani

    ARBIL, Iraq (AFP) — Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas on Monday met Kurdish regional government leader Massud Barzani in a visit aimed at cementing ties between the two largest stateless peoples in the Middle East. (!!)

    “We did not need any invitation to visit this brotherly nation and we have felt for a long time that the doors were always open to us without even needing to make an appointment,” Abbas said at a joint news conference.

    “The honourable president Barzani was not even told of our visit until 24 hours beforehand and he said ‘Ahlan wa Sahlan,’” Abbas said, using the common Arabic form of greeting.

    Barzani for his part praised Abbas for being the first “president” to visit the autonomous region in northern Iraq.

    “We are used to our Palestinian brothers always being in the forefront of aiding our people in the past and present,” he said. “This visit will cement the relationship between our two peoples with their similar suffering.

    “Just as he is the first president to visit the region we expect and we hope that the Palestinian consulate will be the first consulate to open in Arbil.”

    Abbas is the president of the Palestinian Authority, an entity created by the 1993 Oslo autonomy accords that governs parts of the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

    Abbas’s forces were driven out of the Gaza Strip by the Islamist Hamas movement in June 2007.

    Barzani is the president of the autonomous Kurdish region of northern Iraq. The Kurds, numbering between 25 and 35 million people, are concentrated in a region overlapping Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria and have never had a state.

    Abbas’s trip came one week after he held talks with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, in Baghdad, in what was the first visit to Iraq by a Palestinian leader since the 2003-US led invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein.

    Saddam was a vocal patron of the Palestinians under Abbas’s predecessor Yasser Arafat but ruled the Kurds with an iron fist, brutally crushing Kurdish rebellions in the 1980s and killing an estimated 182,000 people.

    Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved

    Source:  www.google.com/hostednews/afp, 13 April 2009

  • Security forces ‘running rampant’ in northern Iraq

    Security forces ‘running rampant’ in northern Iraq

    Tuesday, 14 Apr 2009

    Hundreds of people still detained without trial and beatings commonplace in Iraq's Kurdistan, Amnesty International says
    Hundreds of people still detained without trial and beatings commonplace in Iraq's Kurdistan, Amnesty International says

    Iraq’s northern autonomous Kurdistan region may have escaped the bloodshed that has blighted the rest of the country in recent years, but observers have warned of the desperate human rights situation.

    Security forces that report directly to the region’s president and not the ministry are operating “beyond the rule of law” as detentions without trial and disappearances remain rife, a report out today claims.

    Amnesty International, which conducted the report, said hundreds remain in long-term detention without trial, while electric shocks, beatings with wooden poles and beatings on the soles of the feet are routinely dished out as punishment for detainees.

    “The Kurdistan region has been spared the bloodletting and violence that continues to wrack the rest of Iraq and the Kurdistan regional government has made some important human rights advances,” said Malcolm Smart, director of the human rights group’s Middle East and North Africa programme

    “Yet real problems – arbitrary detention and torture, attacks on journalists and freedom of expression, and violence against women – remain, and urgently need to be addressed by the government.”

    One case highlighted by the report is Walid Yunis Ahmad, a married father of three in his early 40s who worked at a radio and TV station linked to the Islamic Movement in Kurdistan. Originally detained in February 2000 by plain-clothed men believed to be from the Asayish security organisation, as of February this year he was still being held (reportedly in solitary confinement and in poor health) without charge or trial at the group’s headquarters in Erbil.

    It took Mr Ahmad’s family three years to even discover that he was detained – after the Red Cross informed them of his detention, Amnesty International said.

    Source:  www.inthenews.co.uk, 14 Apr 2009

  • Turkish-Iraqi-American Trilateral Security Mechanism Focuses on PKK Terrorism

    Turkish-Iraqi-American Trilateral Security Mechanism Focuses on PKK Terrorism

    Turkish-Iraqi-American Trilateral Security Mechanism Focuses on PKK Terrorism

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 70
    April 13, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas
    The trilateral commission established between Turkey, the United States and Iraq to facilitate security cooperation against the activities of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in Northern Iraq continues to operate. However it remains uncertain if it will produce tangible results that satisfy Turkey’s expectations to eliminate the PKK threat. Last week, two Turkish soldiers died in a clash with PKK militants, in which seven terrorists were killed, and this could signal an escalation of the PKK’s militants’ activities ahead of summer. This incident increases the pressure on the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP) to take urgent military measures.

    On April 11 Turkey’s Minister of Interior Besir Atalay travelled to Baghdad for a ministerial level meeting of the trilateral commission where he met the Iraqi National Security Minister Shirwan al-Waili and the Charges d’Affairs of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Patricia Butenis (Anadolu Ajansi, April 11, Hurriyet Daily News, April 12). A five-point declaration was subsequently issued, denouncing the PKK as a terrorist organization which endangers the security of all parties. The statement also added that Baghdad will ban the activities of the PKK and its proxy organization in Iraq, the Kurdistan Democratic Solution Party. The commission reviewed its progress, and reaffirmed their determination to continue working on limiting the political, military and media activities of the PKK.

    The trilateral mechanism was initiated in November 2008, following a change in Turkey’s anti-terrorist policy against the PKK (Terrorism Monitor, December 8, 2008). Iraqi Kurds, who for a long time had refused to cooperate with Turkey on the issue, also changed their position and joined the process as part of the Iraqi delegation. The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) has taken a stronger line since then and promised to curb the activities of the PKK. The Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that a branch of the trilateral mechanism will be established in the Northern Iraqi city of Arbil, which highlighted the thawing in Turkey’s relations with the KRG (Today’s Zaman, February 24).

    From Ankara’s perspective, the conclusions of last weekend’s meeting will test the commitment of the Iraqi Kurds to the “joint fight against the PKK.” During President Abdullah Gul’s visit to Iraq in March, KRG officials expressed their support and offered a plan to disarm the PKK militants in the areas under their control (EDM, March 24, 29). As a further expression of their determination, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, himself a Kurd, gave Gul a warm welcome and threatened the PKK during their joint press briefing: “either lay down arms, or leave Iraq” (www.cnnturk.com, March 24). The Turkish side interpreted Talabani’s statement as a successful sign for Turkey’s new policies in general and Gul’s visit in particular.

    Soon after Gul’s return to Turkey, however, Talabani’s subsequent remarks raised questions about the sincerity of the Iraqi Kurds’ to cooperate. Talabani, who is also the leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, visited Northern Iraq, where he met Mesud Barzani, the leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, who had been travelling in Europe during Gul’s visit. The two leaders discussed relations between the Kurdish groups, as well as the KRG’s ties with the central government in Baghdad. Talabani also briefed Barzani about his contacts with Turkey. Referring to the local Kurdish media, the Turkish press reported that Talabani retracted his earlier position and denied having called on the PKK to “lay down arms or leave Iraq.” Talabani argued he was misunderstood and clarified his position by saying that the disarmament of the PKK was Turkey’s proposal and he was simply referring to it (Dogan Haber Ajansi, April 1).

    Familiar with the Iraqi Kurdish politicians’ reneging on their promises in the past, the Turkish media covered this development extensively, and the opposition parties criticized the government’s reliance on the Northern Iraqi Kurdish groups to handle the PKK threat (www.haber7.com, April 7). In response to a question on the subject, Gul stated “I would like to believe what Talabani said during the joint press briefing” (Anadolu Ajansi, April 3). Gul later hardened his tone against Baghdad, and in an interview on Iraqi TV he called on the government to keep its promises. Noting that Turkey respected Iraq’s territorial integrity, Gul added “if Baghdad cannot solve this problem, we can… If some of the areas used by [the PKK] are not under the control of the central administration, leave it to us and we will take care of it” (Milliyet, April 11).

    Before leaving for Iraq to attend the meeting of the trilateral commission, Atalay said that Turkey expected concrete steps from Baghdad and the Northern Iraqi authorities. According to the Turkish press, the declaration issued after the meeting reaffirmed Talabani’s earlier warning to the PKK, and Atalay emphasized Turkey’s satisfaction with the process, especially his partners’ willingness to continue joint efforts against the PKK presence in Northern Iraq (www.cnnturk.com, April 12).

    The dynamics of the recent developments between Ankara-Baghdad-Arbil illustrate the continuity of the AKP’s Kurdish policy and the fight against terrorism. The decline in the AKP’s electoral support within the southeastern provinces in last month’s local elections was interpreted as a failure of the “domestic” pillar of the government’s Kurdish policy (EDM, March 31). If Turkey cannot ensure the compliance of Baghdad and the KRG to deliver on their promises, it will come to be viewed as a serious blow to the “external” pillar of the government’s anti-terrorist policy. Obviously, this situation makes Ankara anxious to secure tangible results from the trilateral process, but uncertainty remains as to whether the declarations will be translated into effective action. What also adds to Ankara’s sense of urgency is the fear that the advent of spring will witness an increase in militant attacks on Turkish military targets, and raise pressure on the government to immediately address the threat posed by the PKK.

    https://jamestown.org/program/turkish-iraqi-american-trilateral-security-mechanism-focuses-on-pkk-terrorism/
  • The Dream of a Kurdish State

    The Dream of a Kurdish State

    By Hewa Aziz

    Sulaimaniyah, Asharq Al-Awsat- Throughout its long history, the forty-million strong Kurdish nation has never had its own independent state. Since the decline of the Median Empire some 3000 years ago, the Kurds have remained part of other states or, at the best, managed to establish scattered principalities as part of larger empires dominating the region such as the Islamic and Ottoman Empires.

    The Kurds established the principalities of Baban in Sulaimaniyah, Ardalan and Botan, and later founded the province of Sharazor, the capital of which was Kirkuk, and Mosul and other cities.

    The idea of establishing an independent Kurdish state was not a priority for the Kurds, nor was it a matter of necessity. This is because the concept of the modern state was yet to emerge or appear in the region until the late nineteenth century when states began to emerge according to a modern system.

    At the time, despite their potential, Kurdish leaders were preoccupied with minor issues that took their attention away from realizing the dream of establishing an independent Kurdish state, a dream that the Persian and the Ottoman Empires, and modern-day Iran and Turkey have fought against.

    After World War I, an opportunity arose for the Kurds to outline the features of their independent state within the framework of treaties and the international and regional coalitions that dominated that period. However, the Kurdish leader Sheikh Mahmoud al Hafid in particular, was content with establishing his small kingdom in Sulaimaniyah. The kingdom soon collapsed following bloody wars with the British occupation forces that brought down the Ottoman Empire and with it all its allying bodies including al Hafid’s kingdom. He failed to make the most of Kurdish sentiment at the time regarding the Kurdish right to establish a homeland.

    Sheikh Mahmoud al Hafid was unaware of the fact that the new age required a new a vision and conduct, and as a result, the Turks established their own state and the Kurds were dispersed between four of the regional countries: Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria.

    Almost a century has elapsed since then. That experience was followed by other attempts to establish a Kurdish state such as the Republic of Mahabad by Qazi Mohammed in Iranian Kurdistan back in 1946. This attempt was short lived and was brought down by the army of the Pahlavi regime. The dream of establishing an independent Kurdish state is yet to be realized. But the main question is: will this dream ever come true?

    Many Kurdish politicians, intellectuals and decision-makers agree that this dream is possible and can be realized in the right political regional and international circumstances. Others are of the view that the dream is unattainable for geopolitical reasons whereas others predict that more than one autonomous or semi-autonomous state will emerge in the four parts of Kurdistan shortly in view of recent developments and the potential political shifts in the new Middle East over the next two decades.

    Fareed Asasard, a leading figure at the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan [PUK] party and the director of Kurdistan’s Strategic Studies Centre based in Sulaimaniyah, believes that the idea of forming or founding an independent Greater Kurdistan comprising of Kurdistan’s four areas continues to be a hypothetical issue.

    “The basic components required for establishing any state are still unavailable [to the Kurds] at the present time and I believe that they will not be available in the long term for several reasons, the most important of which is that the world will witness a shift in the decades to come causing it to rely on geo-economics instead of geopolitics as the case is at present,” said Asasard.

    Asasard, who has conducted a lot of research on this topic, stresses that the idea of founding a greater independent state has failed a number of times. For example the Turks failed to found the Greater Turkish Empire from China to the Mediterranean to ensure the existence of the Turkish race everywhere. Asasard adds, “In the mid-1990s, I presented a research paper on the geopolitics of Kurdistan in which I made clear that establishing an independent Kurdish state in Iraqi Kurdistan would be very difficult as it requires changing the map of a significant part of the world. Besides, even if this state were established, it would remain isolated from the world as it would have no seaports.”

    Asasard expects that there will be several small Kurdish statelets in other parts of Kurdistan in the long term especially as the initial step in this direction has already been taken in the sense that the political and administrative structure of Iraqi Kurdistan is quite independent. However, he stressed that the link between these Kurdish states on the economic level in the future will be very weak and that these states will remain linked to the central systems in Tehran, Turkey and Baghdad.

    Asasard stated that he believes that international politics will be subject to the logics and authority of the economy in upcoming decades. Therefore, the Kurdish statelets, if they emerge, will be economically weak and this will be their biggest problem, not to mention their unfortunate location, which will always tip the scale in favour of their neighbours, making it subordinate to these neighbouring countries. Therefore, the idea of founding an independent Kurdish state is an unachievable dream.

    On the other hand however, Dr. Jaza Toufi Taleb, professor of geopolitics at the University of Sulaimani believes that all the basic constituents are available for an independent Kurdish state to be established on Kurdish land such as the geographical borders, nation, economy and seaports. However, the political atmosphere is completely unsuitable for outlining the features of the state at present, especially as the concerned countries continue to reject even marginal autonomy for the Kurds in their countries. Dr Taleb explained that even though several independent states around the world, such as Kosovo for example, do not have the potential that Iraqi Kurdistan enjoys.

    “I believe that if reformists in Iran and the moderates in Turkey gain power in the upcoming elections, and with the geopolitical changes in Syria that are taking place, this would allow for the rise of political bodies in the Kurdistan region, specifically in Turkey which wants to join the EU but a precondition is the acknowledgement of the rights of all minorities. In Iran, there are signs of such bodies emerging under the rule of reformists. These bodies will represent the initial step towards the establishment of the Kurdish state in the long term. Turkey will be the starting point towards this goal. However, geopolitically, the dream of establishing the greater Kurdish state remains a difficult dream to make come true,” explained Dr Taleb.

    But Hussein Yazdan Bana, Vice President of the Kurdistan Freedom Party headed by Ali Qazi Mohammed, the son of the founder of the Kurdish Mahabad Republic in Iranian Kurdistan, stressed that the Kurdish nation has the right to an independent state on its land in accordance with international law. He emphasized that Kurdistan possesses all the requirements necessary for establishing an independent state just like other countries in the world. “Conspiracies and international interests were, and still are, the major obstacles to the establishment of the Kurdish state. This is exemplified by what happened to Sheikh Mahmoud al Hafid’s kingdom and the Kurdistan Republic [of Mahabad] founded by Qazi Mohamed.”

    Yazdan Bana emphasized that the most important prerequisite for the establishment of any state is the will and resolution of the nation itself and the favourable external factors and circumstances that have not been agreeable to the Kurds until now.

    “If the British had not been present and the superpowers did not have their own interests, the Kurdish, Baban, Botan and Ardalan principalities would have been successful in establishing Greater Kurdistan. In addition, the very few opportunities that were made available to the Kurds throughout history, specifically after World War I, were not utilised well by Kurdish politicians to establish that state.”

    Yazdan Bana confirmed that international policies in the current age of globalization are not resistant to the aspirations of countries seeking to establish their own independent states. These conditions can be utilised to make the Kurdish dream come true provided that there is a unified political will among the Kurds.

    Yazdan Bana said, “The establishment of the Kurdish state is a goal that the Kurds and their political powers should act to achieve, and we can do this provided that a unified and a solid political will is made available. At present, the establishment of this state is not possible for several reasons, but once the Kurdish politicians abandon their personal dreams and ambitions for power and influence then forty million people will be able to establish their own state.”

    Abdul Baqi Yousef, member of the politburo of the Kurdish Yekiti Party in Syria highlighted that the establishment of an independent state is the right of the Kurdish nation and it is not an impossible dream. However, he explains that this is conditional upon future political developments in the region that will outline existing ties between the Kurds and the Middle East region and will result in establishing ties between all the parts of Kurdistan.

    “States are not established based on emotions or desires but basic factors such as geography, economy and others factors that are all available in Kurdistan. I believe that the future developments, in the long run, will allow for the establishment of several Kurdish statelets in the region, and this will lead to the establishment of independent greater Kurdistan.”

    But the issue differs for the Kurdistan Workers’ Party [PKK] in Turkey, which called for establishing greater Kurdistan since it began the armed struggle in 1984. The party reduced its demand to establishing a confederation system that ensures national and cultural rights for Kurds whose population exceeds ten million in Turkey’s Kurdistan region alone.

    Ahmed Deniz, the PKK’s foreign affairs officer, believes that the municipal elections that took place recently in Turkey were promising as they indicated fair democratic and political solutions to the Kurdish cause in Turkey.

    Deniz told Asharq Al-Awsat that the Kurdish nation, whose land was split between the four countries following the Treaty of Lausanne that was signed after World War I, is still the only nation with no independent state in the region despite that its population exceeds 40 million.

    “In the PKK, we believe that a confederation system based on the freedom and rights of the Kurdish people is best suited to the Kurdish cause not only in Turkey but in the entire Kurdistan region as is the case with several advanced European countries. However, the PKK still believes in the right of the Kurdish people to an independent state. But the PKK’s political strategy at present does not aim to establish an independent state that requires a particular atmosphere that we lack at present, especially as an independent state does not necessarily mean freedom for nations. What is more important to us is that the Kurds gain their freedom, enjoy real democracy and human rights. Only then can the Kurds decide themselves the nature of the political identity they want,” said Deniz.

    As for the renowned Kurdish-Syrian writer Nouri Brimo, he said that “the [establishment of the] Kurdish state is not a dream but a political course and its supporters increase as it gains strength through the sacrifices of its people. In all cases, the Kurds have been able to prove throughout history that they have always been rational in their political discourse and presentation and that they have always respected their neighbours.”

    But Sami Davood, a renowned researcher at the Syrian Sardam cultural institution, stated that the establishment of the Kurdish state is related to geographical factors first and foremost. In other words, the issue requires the liberation of Kurdistan’s geographical region before an independent identity can be built.

    Due to the geographical nature of the Kurdish areas in Syria, there cannot be any armed struggle unlike in the Kurdish regions in Iraq, Turkey and Iran in addition to the population density of each of the four regions. Therefore, Davood believes that any attempt by the Kurds to establish their own state will be confronted with strong opposition from the regional states not so that they can keep the Kurds within the boundaries of their own countries by force, but because the majority of water and energy resources are situated in the Kurdish areas of the four countries.

    Source: aawsat.com, 10/04/2009

  • Turkey in a Dialogue of Interests

    Turkey in a Dialogue of Interests

    Abdullah Iskandar      Al-Hayat      – 08/04/09//

     

    The Turks welcomed the stances announced by the new American President Barack Obama with much fanfare and support. The officials underlined the unity of stances and interests, while the press focused on the stardom of the guest and his ability to speak to the Turkish audience.

    This Turkish sense of pride at the renewal of the relations with the United States, following the setback caused by the rise of the Islamists to power, they who refused to have their country used in the invasion of Iraq, goes beyond the bilateral context to an identical analysis of and approach to the regional developments. This is based on the new American policy and the Turkish ability to cooperate with its goals.

    Obama came to Ankara, the capital of Ataturk and secularism, and to Istanbul, the capital where civilizations and religions meet, following two exceptional summits in Europe, the G20 economic summit and the NATO summit.

    He came fully aware of the depth of the problems facing his country on the ground, problems that are not solely confined to its image which hit an all-time low because of his predecessor’s policies. As in the G20 summit, where the United States was forced to concede to its partners over the measures to confront the financial crisis, it was also forced during the NATO summit to take their views and goals into account.

    Turkey, in this regard, presents the most prominent example of responsiveness to the new American approach given its potentials and geo-strategic position. The Justice and Development Party has successfully harmonized its Islamic roots and the secular system, overcoming the financial and economic crisis that rocked Turkey in the past to record high growth rates before the Turkish economy, like all others, succumbed to the latest crisis.

    In this sense, the party reconciled an Islamic regime with the requirements of democracy and wise economic management.  But Turkey is more advanced than other Islamic countries with similar successes, like Indonesia which was presented more than once as the first Muslim country from which Obama will potentially address Muslims.

    Turkey is superior to the other Islamic countries because it understands the dialogue of interests, not only the dialogue of religions. It is a full member of NATO and the only Islamic country to send forces to Afghanistan. Its troops are also deployed in south Lebanon as part of the UNIFIL in implementation of an international resolution. It almost sent forces and observers to Gaza as part of the efforts to solve the issue of the siege and the border crossings.

    In tandem with these military roles, Turkey also played the role of mediator in the indirect Syrian-Israeli negotiations and is prepared to resume these negotiations. It also played an important role during the Israeli aggression on Gaza. It is an important player in Iraq, given its ties to the Kurdish issue and its position as a neighboring state with common interests. Ankara also enhanced its political and economic relations with the Gulf States, especially Saudi Arabia, so that it has become an important economic partner.
        
    In addition to this Atlantic and Arab role, Turkey overlooks a crescent of crises of interest to the United States, whether in the Caucasian region with its economic and political issues or in Iran where the nuclear program constitutes a source of anxiety for Ankara and Washington alike. Before all that, Turkey remains the eastern gate to Europe which supplies it with cultural diversity and reconciliation between religions.

    Thus Turkey has all the prerequisites of a perfect partner for the United States. This is why Obama chose to declare the principles of his policy on Turkish soil. With its regime, leadership, regional and economic relations, reconciliatory approach, and diverse historical background, Turkey embodies Obama’s goals and principles.