How can Iraq be re-uni­fied?

The Kurdish Globe - - NEWS - By Gazi Has­san

In the mid­dle of July, the Iraqi Par­lia­ment held its meet­ing and elected the par­lia­ment Pres­i­dency Board (a Sunni as a Speaker, a Kurd and a Shi­ite as Deputies). This is a clear de­cep­tion of democ­racy. Be­cause while elect­ing the first deputy of the Speaker, who is a Shi­ite, their rep­re­sen­ta­tives shouted protest­ing against Ah­mad Cha­l­abi’s nom­i­na­tion for the post. Cha­l­abi is a Shi­ite too in Mwahi­doon bloc. His op­po­nents said that his nom­i­na­tion is not pos­si­ble as they had al­ready agreed on who was go­ing to be elected. They are do­ing some­thing that they think no one knows about. How­ever, all the sce­nar­ios and agree­ments are known by or­di­nary peo­ple on the street.

It is doubtful if this process could nor­mal­ize the po­lit­i­cal tur­moil and mov­ing for­ward to an agree­ment on nam­ing the pres­i­dent and the prime min­ster with their deputies. We should also bear in mind that among all these peo­ple hold­ing the posts in the past eight years, power was uniquely and prac­ti­cally held and ex­er­cised by PM Nuri al-Ma­liki sin­gle-hand­edly. What has caused al­ready to raise a new ques­tion is that after nom­i­nat­ing the Speaker of the Par­lia­ment, al-Ma­liki stated that “the will-be-Iraqi-Pres­i­dent, who will be a Kurd, must work on main­tain­ing law and order, the unity of Iraq, a per­son that should not ex­ceed the Iraqi law and con­sti­tu­tion, and have the to­tal be­lief in the unity of the Iraqi soil.” Ac­tu­ally in the past few years, the only party in the Iraqi Pres­i­dency, Govern­ment and the Par­lia­ment that have prac­ti­cally worked to sus­tain se­cu­rity and po­lit­i­cal co­ex­is­tence and main­tain­ing a uni­fied Iraq have been Kur­dish rep­re­sen­ta­tives. Sun­nis and Shias are the main fac­tor be­hind the de­te­ri­o­rat­ing sit­u­a­tion of Iraq. They have moved to­wards the de­struc­tion of Iraq, es­pe­cially Nuri al-Ma­liki who wants to hide the fact of his po­lit­i­cal and govern­ing fail­ure by at­tack­ing the Kur­dis­tan Re­gion.

The bit­ter re­al­ity is that ac­cord­ing to Iraq's PM the prime and di­rect source of Iraqi crises does not seem to be ISIS, ter­ror­ist groups, rad­i­cal Is­lamists and Sun­nis, or for­mer Sad­dam Hus­sein’s af­fil­i­ated and Baathist mem­bers, but the Kurds. Al-Ma­liki has cho­sen the mil­i­tary op­tion to solve his prob­lems. He ac­cuses his op­po­nents of de­stroy­ing Iraq. More­over, he has pun­ished the Kur­dish peo­ple by cut­ting their bud­get. He has not done any­thing to make the par­ties re­turn to the Con­sti­tu­tion. Al-Ma­liki has duped his Shi­ite loy­al­ists un­der the pre­text of stand­ing against the ISIS into fight­ing his own op­po­nents from both the Shi­aas and the Sun­nis. These are the real risks over the fu­ture of Iraq.

They in­ter­nal and ex­ter­nal par­ties who want to re-unify the dis­in­te­grated Iraq are wrong, be­cause those par­ties only can do that by cre­at­ing a to­tal­i­tar­ian authority. They can re­build a new uni­fied Iraq through op­pres­sion and killing. They will re­build a hellish Iraq as be­fore. But the Kur­dis­tan Re­gion Pres­i­dent Mas­soud Barzani said in an of­fi­cial meet­ing in Er­bil last week with the rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the Is­lamic Repub­lic of Iran: “We’re not stay­ing in the fire of sec­tar­ian rad­i­cal­ism and false govern­ing of Iraq. The rea­son be­hind ev­ery prob­lem in Iraq is re­lated to the cul­ture of self-im­pos­ing, to­tal­i­tar­i­an­ism and the wrong govern­ing of af­fairs. We’ve warned Bag­dad of the ter­ror threats but they didn’t take it se­ri­ously, and after their fail­ure they in­tended to cover their fail­ure by ac­cus­ing the Kur­dis­tan Re­gion.”

So, how Iraq can be re­built while those who rule in Bagh­dad in­stead of ad­mit­ting their mis­takes and step­ping down they ac­cuse the peace­ful Kur­dis­tan Re­gion as the rea­son be­hind their self-cre­ated hell. By im­ple­ment­ing such pol­icy they trig­ger racism and en­mity against Kur­dis­tan. Nei­ther the US nor Bri­tain can limit the far reach­ing in­flu­ence of Iran and other Arab coun­tries on the de­vel­op­ments. In ad­di­tion, they don’t want to pre­tend to know any­thing ei­ther. On the con­trary, by in­tend­ing to main­tain Iraq united, they sac­ri­fice the rights of the main vic­tim of the Sykes-Pi­cot agree­ment, namely the Kurds.

We know that the Sun­nis, who are sup­ported by Sunni Arab coun­tries, are stand­ing against Shiaa’s power. Some other coun­tries, un­der the pre­text of be­ing na­tion­al­ist Arabs, lament the dis­in­te­gra­tion of Iraq. For ex­am­ple, Egypt con­sid­ers Kurds as a threat and Syria con­sid­ers ISIS as a men­ace.

Turkey’s re­la­tions have de­vel­oped with South­ern Kur­dis­tan and the Kur­dish lead­er­ship. The two coun­tries work to­gether as al­lies to the US and the West in the strate­gic de­ci­sions in the re­gion and com­bat­ing ter­ror­ism. They’ll be two ma­jor par­ties in sus­tain­ing the sta­bil­ity in the area and shel­ter­ing thou­sands of Syr­ian and Iraqi refugees. They’ll also try to main­tain neu­tral­ity and sup­port­ing those whose rights are vi­o­lated. Even fur­ther, there’s a mu­tual po­lit­i­cal and eco­nom­i­cal un­der­stand­ing be­tween them about the fu­ture of Kirkuk and de­ter­min­ing the fu­ture of peo­ple liv­ing in the area and the Ar­ti­cle 140. So it’s nor­mal that the Iraqi Tur­comen will no longer have con­cerns re­gard­ing their sit­u­a­tion in Kur­dis­tan.

The main ques­tion is: what kind of Iraq do Ma­liki’s col­leagues and some Arab coun­tries and Iran want? Will they turn a blind eye to ISIS and rad­i­cal groups’ crimes for the sake of pre­vent­ing a Kur­dish state? Is it OK if Kirkuk is con­trolled by a ter­ror­ist ISIS from Syria, Morocco, Egypt, Al­ge­ria, Saudi, Ye­men, Jor­dan, Le­banon and Afghanistan? While the Kurds must be pun­ished be­cause they have de­vel­oped their peace­ful re­gion and elim­i­nated the threats from ter­ror­ists in the area?

The sec­ond ques­tion is: has al-Ma­liki been prac­ti­cally able to stay in power? What kind of Kurd does he want to be Iraq'si Pres­i­dent? We should bear in mind that any Kur­dish rep­re­sen­ta­tive go­ing to Bagh­dad should shoul­der the post of pres­i­dency after an ap­proval by the Kur­dish po­lit­i­cal par­ties. This is ac­cord­ing to a de­ci­sion by the Kur­dis­tan Re­gion Pres­i­dent Mas­soud Barzani. At the same time, Nuri al-Ma­liki doesn’t have the right to talk about the per­son­al­ity of the Kur­dish rep­re­sen­ta­tives. The per­son that is ap­pointed ac­cord­ing to Bagh­dad’s stan­dards will be a weak, un­trust­wor­thy, de­viant and will be the rep­re­sen­ta­tive of al-Ma­liki, not Kur­dis­tan.

We may ask: does Amer­ica want the Kurds to have a pos­i­tive role in the Arab crises of Iraq? Iran has the same in­ten­tion too. The main ques­tion is that how far the Kur­dish par­ties in this era, which is an im­por­tant mile­stone in Kur­dish his­tory, trust the clas­si­cal men­tal­ity of Bagh­dad. It is a well-tried men­tal­ity of ag­gra­vat­ing crises in­stead of solv­ing them. I’m a pes­simist in this re­gard. The Iraqi re­al­ity is pitch dark. There’s no light for any har­mo­nious co­ex­is­tence in a demo­cratic, peace­ful and free Iraq.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Iraq

© PressReader. All rights reserved.