Risky developments in Iraq

by Michael Jansen

While last Sunday's elections have been hailed as a triumph of the Iraqi people over violence and a victory for democracy, the popular consultation was exploited by Kurdish separatists to promote their dangerous agenda.

Kurdish non-governmental organisations campaigning for independence from Iraq set up tents next to official polling stations and asked voters to participate in an unofficial referendum. Those taking part were told to choose between independence, autonomy and central government. The vast majority - as many as 11 to one - chose independence.

The most alarming aspect of this affair was that the separatists were able to set up their tents and tables next to polling places manned and guarded by the Kurdish regional authority. Within some stations, the referendum ballot was distributed by polling agents. By permitting the referendum to go ahead in tandem with the vote for a national parliament, regional assembly and provincial councils and even facilitating this effort, the Kurdish authority, dominated by the two main Kurdish political parties, have demonstrated that they are not committed to the unity of Iraq. Indeed, they have acted in bad faith, endangering the security and stability of the country. They are, in fact, going along with the promulgators of a separatist petition circulated last year which was signed by 1.7 million Kurds and presented to the UN.

The Iraqi government and US refused to accept the document.

In Iraq itself, Kurdish action on election day was castigated by Arab and Turkomen Iraqis who feel threatened by Kurdish separatism. In the run-up to the election, members of these two communities residing in Kirkuk and the adjacent oil field area objected vehemently when the Kurds, one-third of the population of the city, imported 110,000 Kurds from elsewhere with the aim of tipping the communal balance in their favour. Around half of these newcomers registered to vote.

Turkoman spokesmen complained that ousted President Saddam Hussein expelled only 11,865 Kurds from the city during his campaign to Arabise it in order to prevent the Kurds from claiming it for their autonomous region or separate state. Following the 2003 war, the US paved the way for a Kurdish seizure of control in Kirkuk by permitting Kurdish peshmerga militias to gain overall control of the city.

The Kurds' latest drive for independence/secession began in 1991 when the US and Britain established a "safe haven" for the Kurds in Iraq's three north eastern provinces. Since then, the Kurds have exercised virtual independence. They have their own parliament, government and security forces, based on the peshmerga. Although Washington has been repeatedly warned that its policy guaranteed that the Kurds would eventually demand an independent state, the Bush and Clinton administrations ignored this warning. Ultimately the US, which portrays itself as the guardian of Iraq's unity and territorial integrity, may have to bomb the Kurds into submission to Baghdad as the British did early last century.

Turkey, which also has a restive Kurdish population, has expressed serious concern over Iraqi Kurdish ambitions ever since the US established the "safe haven". Ankara eventually refused to join the US in its war on Iraq because of widespread opposition to a conflict which could lead to the emergence of a Kurdish state in northern Iraq. Once the US had invaded and occupied the country, Ankara stepped up its criticism of Bush administration policy. Days before the election, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan voiced alarm over the migration of Kurds into Kirkuk, also claimed by Turkey as part of its Ottoman inheritance. Turkish Chief-of-Staff Ilker Basbug warned that Kurdish separatism could prompt Turkish military intervention in Iraq. The Turkish press has been scathing about the potential dangers posed by empowering the Kurdish separatists through the democratic process.

Meanwhile, the large Kurdish turnout at the polls has led the leadership to expect greater weight in the 275-member temporary national parliament than the community's numbers would give the Kurds under proportional representation. The leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, Jalal Talabani, is mentioned as a likely president, while a strong Kurdish presence in the committee drafting Iraq's new constitution is certain to demand autonomy-verging-on-independence and Kirkuk as the price for remaining within Iraq.

Since neither Arab Shiites nor Arab Sunnis are prepared to grant the Kurds these demands, the process of drawing up a constitution could be perilous for all Iraq's communities, including the Kurds, because at least one-third of their number, estimated at about five million, live outside the three Kurdish majority provinces, many of them in Baghdad. Therefore, a Kurdish unilateral declaration of independence could lead to brutal and bloody ethnic cleansing, civil conflict and massive dislocation, as well as Turkish military intervention.

Although aware of the horrendous outcome of Kurdish independence, leading members of the US neoconservative fraternity continue to speak of allowing Iraq to divide into Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite statelets. The obvious objective of these "thinkers" is to destroy the core country of the eastern Arab world, weakening the region to the point that it will readily accept Israel as a legitimate entity and neighbour. Another goal is to fragment the region into communal entities which will require the protection of Big Brother in Washington. This would allow the US to dominate the Middle Eastern land bridge between Europe and Asia, the region's oil resources and markets.

This article was published in the Thursday, February 3, 2005 edition of the Jordan Times. It is used here with permission.