Posts
The Third Dimension in the ME drama: The Kurds
The stage is set in the ME with oil props
It is safe to say that the ME drama started to play on the world stage after WWI with the incursion of the region by the British, US and French powers to establish the hegemony of their oil companies. The West’s concern at the time was to keep the locals’ nose in and the outsiders’ nose out of oil. This job did not prove to be too difficult in the political environment of the interwar period.
Israel thrown onto the stage
A new actor was introduced to the drama after WWII: The state of Israel. The untold motive of founding the state of Israel was to keep the Jews out of Europe. But with that move came a new concern: Not only oil, but Israel’s security also became the concern of the international audience.
Giving the stage to the Sunni-Shiite thug of war
The ancient feud between Sunnis and Shiites added a second dimension to this drama. Sunnis and Shiites have been competing with each other since the death of Prophet Mohammed to disseminate their own version of Islam. Each was using their petro-dollars to build their own mosques and Koran schools in the rest of the Muslim world. This leadership fight between them extended from a sectarian to a political competition after the founding of Israel. Namely, which of the two would be the Muslim world’s hero to oust Israel and all other infidels from the holly lands in order to protect the purity and sanctity of the Muslim soil?
When the US started a war in the sectarian fault line of Iraq the two factions suddenly found themselves face to face on a battle ground, not on a spiritual ground alone. The US wanted to stop the the Iranian (Hezbullah) advance in the ME that threatens Israel and oil interests, and additionally to punish Saddam for having embarrased Bush I earlier. She was caught instead in cross-fire. Someone in Washington ought to have known that Iraq is no Germany or Japan?
The reality is that the Western military presence in the ME will only serve the purpose of brewing the witch’s pot for posterity.
Shiites take over the stage
The US justified its military presence in the region with El-Qaida and Saddam terrorisms (from among many given). Both of the latter being Sunnis were kicked out of the stage. The stage was left to Shiites, although we knew that Shiites are Iranian’s brethren, one of the countries that Bush labeled as “the evil empire”. Make no mistake; the oil fields of Basra will eventually fall in the hands of Shiite surrogates of Iran, Hezbullah. Hezbullah cannot be stopped in Iraq, like we could not stop them in Lebanon.
Multi-cultural Lebanon was the jewel of the ME after WWII. It could have easily become the modernity’s beachhead in the ME. If the same attention given to Jordan to secure the eastern flank of Israel were given also to Lebanon, Israel’s northern borders also could have been secure today. But when Shiites infiltrated Lebanon and turned it into hell, the West did not show enough determination. It swiftly abandoned the mission after the Hezbullah attacked the US military compound in 1983. Hezbullah, thereafter, established itself firmly in the country; so much so that the Israeli operation in 2007 could not drive them out. At this stage of the show it will be more difficult to achieve such a mission, unless we turn Lebanon into another battlefield like Iraq. Or is it more accurate to say another inferno like Iraq?
[An explanation for the audience during the change of the stage: In an address on May 1, 1999 (that’s before the Iraq war) Walter A. McDougall Co-Director of FPRI’s History Academy and Professor of International Relations at the University of Pennsylvania, said: “Americans make a habit of declaring a war, sending over massive firepower, then expressing amazement when the locals do not bend at once to our will. Only then do we finally decide that it might be a good idea to learn something about the history and culture of the people we are trying to bludgeon, help, and change. Not that a common soldier needs an advanced degree in multicultural studies, but it would help if our policymakers took time to study the world over which they profess to exercise a benevolent hegemony.”]
Calling on the Kurds to help clear the stage
As the Iraq war wore on, Shiites showed their true face in the person of Mukhteda El-Sadr (surprise!). We needed an ally against Shiites. We scurried to make amends with Sunnis. Suddenly Sunnis were no longer the tools of El-Qaida, but were our friends. The current optimism built around Sunni co-operation to chase out El-Qaida is attributed to the so-called surge and change in battle tactics; once again discounting (or maybe forgetting) the importance of the ingrained Sunni-Shiite conflict. The fleeting Sunni dislike of El-Qaida is not the same as the lasting Sunni dislike of Shiites.
More importantly however we made a new(!) and clever(!) discovery: Alliance with Kurds. After all, Kurds were the enemies of Sunnis, because of Saddam’s Kurdish massacre in Halabja in 1988 during the Iraq-Iran war, and they also have territorial aspirations in Iran. Thus entered Kurds on the scene, introducing the third dimension to the ME drama.
Kurds are ethnically of Persian origin, their language is classified as Iranian (Surani, Kirmanji, Zaza, Gurani). They are also mostly Shiites. They occupy land in Iraq and Turkey and somewhat in Iran and Syria. It is estimated that there were 3.5 mil. Kurds in Iraq (about 25%) before the war, about 10 mil in Turkey (about 14%), close to 1 mil in Syria (about 10%), and 4-5 mil in Iran (about 7%). They never established their own state. The Soviet Union once established in Iran in 1946 the Mahabad Republic, which lasted only one year, before being abolished by the Shah.
Kurdish nationalism was aroused at the same time as the nationalist movements sparked in the Ottoman lands by the British in the 19th century. Kurdish nationalism however never became an organized and sustained movement until the Soviet expansion. Their major armed movements were: Kockiri rebellion of 1920, Sheikh Said rebellion of 1924, Agri rebellion of 1927, and Dersim rebellion of 1937, all in Turkey. They were all communist oriented except for Sheikh Said rebellion which was instigated by Britain as leverage during the British-Turkish negotiations over whether Mosul were to be included in the new Turkish Republic. Turkey’s concern in those negotiations was not only Mosul’s oil, but also not to separate the Kurdish population which would create a tinder box for the future (which is today). The Turkish intent was to establish some cultural homogeneity by making a clear separation of the Anatolian people from Arabs. After all, Turks and Kurds shared the same land and history for centuries . Whereas Arab lands were all Ottoman conquest lands. Most importantly, Kurds fought side by side with Turks on their own volition to liberate Anatolia from foreign invasion after WWI. Twenty-two Kurdish tribes in the region confirmed in writing to Ataturk, at the start of the liberation war, that they will fight against the common enemy. Kurds contributed to the national and political will of founding the new Turkish Republic. However, Turkey lost the haggling over Mosul against Britain; Britain drew today’s borders with the help of the League of Nations. Turks' attempt to include Kurds in the new Turkish Republic was thwarted. Hence Britain once again presented the future generations of the world with yet another problem to deal with.
Completely unrelated to this history, a Marxist organization was established by the Soviets in 1970 in Syria, which later moved its training camps to Greece, and finally started a terrorist warfare in Turkey in 1984. When chased by Turkish security forces these terrorists named PKK took refuge in Iraq and Syria. Both countries, thereafter, wanted to use this terrorist organization to pressure Turkey for their demands on the rich water resources of Turkey. Greece, not surprisingly, continued helping them in Syria. Turkey finally forced Syria to close down these camps in 1999.
In the meantime, however, Kurds in Iraq were able to establish a regional assembly and a regional government under the protection of the No-fly zone established above the 36th parallel after the 1st Iraq war. The terrorist organization PKK nestled in that safe heaven, supposedly dropped its Marxist aspirations, and donned a nationalist cloak. Their objective is now defined as “the creation of an independent socialist state of Kurdistan”, their ideology is defined as “Kurdish nationalism”.
The stage help causes the stage to collapse
Kurds, whom the US called on to help keep Iraq together are in fact poised to disintegrate Iraq. It appears that a Kurdish independence can no longer be avoided. But if Kurds will gain their independence in Iraq, Shiites will surely declare theirs, which in reality will be (in)dependence on Iran. The consequential marginalization of Sunnis in Iraq will not be very well taken by the Arab world. The militant faction of Islam will have a playing field in the ME and beyond.
[Another explanation to spectators while the collapsed stage is cleared: Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote on March 19, 2007:
“As Iraqi politicians debated the constitution, Barzani and Talabani won the right both to preserve their own party's militias and to veto the deployment of the Iraqi army into the Kurdish region.
On June 23, 2004, U.S. authorities transferred $1.4 billion to Kurdish leaders. Less than a week after receiving that windfall, the Kurdistan Regional Government signed its own oil-prospecting agreement with the Norwegian company DNO, a slap in the face to Iraqi unity.
Once the Iraqi Kurds were flush with cash, U.S. leverage eroded. Iraqi Kurdistan now issues its own visas. The Kurdistan Region maintains separate representation overseas. The Kurdistan Development Corporation competes with Iraq for investment………. Iraqi Kurdish leaders continue to shelter the PKK. Whether their support is active or passive is irrelevant, for there are no acceptable levels of support for terror. Nor is it responsible to undercut the security of a long-term NATO ally like Turkey. Until Iraqi Kurdish leaders expel terrorists in their midst and renounce interests beyond Iraq's borders, any congressional encouragement of ethnic federalism risks plunging the region into chaos."]
Furthermore, it is reported that the US is and will be using the Iranian branch of PKK to unsettle the Iranian regime. It seems that Israel is also helping the US in this project. Such an adventure will encourage an Iranian-Turkish alliance against Kurds, which will not please the US.
The EU advocates the so-called “minorities” solution for Kurds in Turkey, because Greeks want to use the Kurdish leverage to settle the Cyprus and Aegean conflicts. Russia ignores the problem, because they would like to use it as leverage against Turkey’s attempt to establish an east-west energy corridor to by-pass Russia. Of course, all of the MEastern countries have aspirations on the abundant water supplies of Turkey which run down to the South. The desert countries of the South are aware that today’s riches may be in the oil-green, but tomorrow’s is in the blue life-line. Today’s oil wars will be replaced by future water wars, because apparently we cannot live without wars.
This confusion created by the West emboldens the PKK. They don’t agree to any compromise, except to the independence of Kurds. Iraq’s Kurdish authority on its part rises to this opportunity, refuses to denounce the PKK as terrorists, and in fact supports it. Kurdistan Democratic Party leader Barzani commented, "Turkey, Syria , and Iran should get used to the idea of an independent Kurdistan". Encouraged by the US alliance, Kurds are now thinking even bigger: A greater Kurdistan that would include not only a big portion of Iraq but also of Turkey.
Turkey’s disintegration is a distinct possibility. But the two groups of people are so much inter-mixed all over the country through marriages and business that a real separation can never be achieved. Unrest in the area will be interminable in an event of separation. We also need to take into account that Kurdish nationalism fuels Turkish nationalism. This pessimistic outlook may not materialize tomorrow or the next day, but if the current circumstances in Turkey and in the international community’s policy towards Turkey continue for another say five to ten years it may very well become a reality, although Turkey on her part, fought very hard against the PKK in 1980s and 90s. She poured in $20 billion to the Kurdish areas, considering that the problem may be solved by improving the economic conditions in the area. 19 hydro-power plants and a vast irrigation system were built. Agriculture, industry and trade increased many fold. However, despite the economic improvements Kurds still migrated to bigger cities in Turkey, and PKK persistently sabotaged these economic installations.
The ME drama continues to play. The drama could end up as a tragedy, if the apparent scenario reviewed above continues on the same path.
A critique of the drama
I, as a critique of this drama, suggest that a happier ending to the ME drama could be in the eradication of PKK, and in the establishment of a federative state of Kurdistan in Iraq with the conditions ably spelled out by Mike Rubin, whereto Kurds of Turkey who long for an identity with an independent Kurdistan may emigrate. Under any other compromise, Turkey, which is already at the abyss of Islamization and nationalism, will turn its back to the West and will seek alliance with Iran or Arab countries. That means Islam will have a foot in Europe. Endless conflicts will ensue in the Aegean, Mediterranean and the Black Sea areas, in addition to those that already exist in the region. That will be another tragedy.
April 2008
