The Phantoms of Partition in Iraq
Abdel Wahab Badrakhan Al-Hayat - 10/08/05//
There is a great deal of contradiction in the stances announced by the Kurdish leader Massood Al Barzani. There are also many doubts about the timing of these announcements. As there is an over embarrassment when the alternatives are reduced to everything or nothing, i.e. everything the Kurds decided to set as their rights. Or else, no Constitution for a “new Iraq”. This tacitly means that there will be no new Iraq, while the old Iraq has become history.
The issue does not pertain to the “rights of the Kurds” to begin with. In light of Barazani’s positions, it has become clear that the Kurds seized the opportunity of drafting the Constitution to inform their partners that they do not want to live in Iraq. They are rather seeking to benefit from the wreckage of Iraq to gather all the factors allowing for the founding of a Kurdish state, and guarantee its survival. The rest of the Iraqis are supposed to agree to this Kurdish scheme, even though difficult or even impossible.
The virtue of Barazani is that he is forthright and clear. He departs from his obligation of finding a historical settlement that would allow the Kurds to gain their rights; after a long period of repression and coercion. Barazani is even inducing others to reveal their inner self and their true intentions. However, there is a huge difference between a settlement within Iraq and a settlement on the detriment of Iraq, were the goal to be a “unified Iraq” or rather a “unified federalist Iraq” according to the expression of the US occupation representative Zalmay Khalil Zad. Opening the files of Iraq’s regional borders means, at the least, throwing back the region decades behind, and sowing rifts, with all their repercussions and wars.
It goes without saying that the Iraqi Kurds need justice, as the right of self determination deserves to be materialized by an independent Kurdish state. In order for this state to survive there should be an international and regional agreement reflecting a commitment to the sovereignty of the State and the sanctity of the territory and borders. Such a translation presumes the acknowledgement of the Kurds right for self determination in Turkey, Syria and Iran. Iraq’s downfall under occupation made it the first nominee to give up a part of its territory to the looming Kurdish state, even by force. What about the other countries. What does it mean for Kurds in Iraq to have their own state if the core of the Kurdish state did not include all the Kurds and allowing them to communicate geographically and in person. On this presumed basis – or precedent - how could be later exclude the reopening of the Iraqi – Kuwaiti border.
These possibilities reminds us of the many US declarations that circulated on the eve of the Iraqi war and continued to circulate throughout the first months that followed the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Will the “redrawing of the regional map” begin with Iraq’s Kurdistan? Raising questions is legitimate because what Barazani is proposing could be explained in many ways. The one obvious and clear-cut issue is that “partition” is the strategic objective for the Kurds in Iraq.
The fact is one needs super-outstanding acrobatics to convince others that you are asking for your right based on the fact that you are there to live with the other in a single country and on the same land, and at the same time you need your full and accomplished rights because your are preparing for partition. In this mined rationale the partition goal should supersede the goal sought from the Constitution, i.e. setting up a conciliatory document, which is fair to all the components of the Iraqi society: first by respecting their rights and second by identifying their duties and responsibilities towards the country.
With the upcoming Iraqi closing dates; from finalizing the Constitution to preparing the elections, it seems that the previous period was lost in lies. It also seems that the majority of the counterparts operatively favor the alternative of separating Iraq more than they were vigilant towards preserving its unity. When Barazani says “if they want us to participate in the Construction of the new Iraq they should guarantee all the rights of our people” he is actually ignoring the fact that he is demanding “rights” that destroy the new Iraq. When Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani says that he supports a “general federal system”, he is intentionally or unintentionally opening the door for what is currently known as the Shiite entity in the South.
If the souls and intentions now reach such a level of seclusion, then what Constitution are they talking about? No, there is not surprise in what is happening. Every side contributed to the war, based on its hidden agenda. No one had a vision for a “unified Iraq”; but rather programs for establishing tailor-made states. It is probable that the power of war and the American occupation are not strange to the partition project. If they publicly excluded it at the beginning, the Americans are now supporting and even secretly facilitating it. As for those in the US administration who are still refusing it, the Israeli interventions in Iraq might have already convinced them.
|
