What kind of Baghdad do we need?
The matter isn’t about Kurds when talking about the kind of Baghdad that’s needed. The world needs a Baghdad that is trusted by all, a one where there is democracy and openness, not dictatorship and self-imposing leadership. So can the Baghdad we see now be a new image of a new era? This question is of course problematic. Because before anything else, Baghdad has been ruling in pools of blood for thousands of years, and power has been held by swords, so how can we all of a sudden see a democratic, secure and peaceful Baghdad not taking into account the historical background.
If we put ourselves in an ordinary and traditional Middle Eastern person’s shoes, thinking like them, we would exactly need Baghdad no matter what kind of it. It was just yesterday when Holako ruled, or Saddam Hussein was ruling with iron hand, or an ethnic power is ruling it now. Thus, neither the local and internal bodies should be fooled and influenced by the development in every ups and downs, nor the international bodies should be easily-deceived and to believe everything, because the Middle East neither considers obedience as surrender, nor it believes that development is a victory to humanity. The Middle East considers deception as bravery, losing as a victory, and their best value to humanity is their graphic images of beheadings, imprisoning and the bloody killings.
So any country or state, even the US, should identify the quality and identity of the Baghdad. Otherwise, we cannot distinguish between Harun Al-Rasheed, Saddam Hussein and Nuri Al-Maliki. It’s true that every human is selfish to the bone, but that doesn’t mean every selfish man is egocentric and unilateral, as to be a democratic person doesn’t mean not to use tanks and warplanes in exterminating one’s opponents, or a liberal man has more than one wife. The Baghdad of today is exactly showing the reality that it neither could give up racism, nor it has determination not to be sectarian. Thus, before needing any Baghdad, we should think of the past hundreds of years in history. The US sacrificed thousands of its men and women for freedom, liberty, building a democratic Iraq, but now the Iraqis themselves are obsessed with sectarian, religious and ethno-racist wars.
In the East, only faces change, the system remains unchanged and dominated by ethnic and religious groups, and the power of tribesmen. That’s why when the US sends a multi-religious, multiethnic and opinion person o Iraq; it doesn’t mean it could change its mudmade leaders. To prove that, they bring back the close people to them from Europe, USA and Canada in order to demonstrate that democratic, civil and open people will be in power, but they soon turn into outdated Sultans from the beginning of their days in office, they turn into Pharaohs, a tyrant who only God himself can defeat.
It’s an essential question; what kind of Baghdad do Kurds need? And what kind of Baghdad do the US, Britain, France, German versus Russia, Iran and China need?
We no longer need a Baghdad just for the sake of being a ruler over us. We no longer need a Baghdad that cannot sustain balance, equality and justice. What message could this Baghdad give to humanity and the international society; the Baghdad which kills Christians, impose sanctions on Kurds, remains wordless and powerless against ISIS? Thus, the local or international powers and bodies should find Baghdad a new definition. Baghdad could only be simultaneously beautiful and powerful when it no longer brings up any dictator, tyrant and unwise people to power. It should bring up people that live up and think with the era and make right decisions. Kurds only need Baghdad to have a real position of democracy, coexistence and openness. As my illiterate mother said: Son! There’s more to say. It means the deletion of the Iraqi capital. Baghdad has come to existence this way and will remain this way. It is better for those who want to change Baghdad to change themselves and adapt to the life and the thinking in Baghdad. Is this the way out? Of course not, it’s a de facto, and politics lives with de facto.