Selling Out the Kurds

Samuel Johnson noted that "Life cannot subsist in society but by reciprocal concessions."

Iraq's Kurdish leaders seem to understand that, and, despite being so much closer to having the pieces in place to make democracy work than the rest of the country (and plenty o' oil), they continue to compromise toward a unified, democratic Iraq, including "concessions in the interim Constitution over the oil-rich city of Kirkuk [and] acceptance of a new government with no Kurds in top positions."

But while the US and other nations of the UN Security Council congratulate themseleves on their unanimous vote yesterday, the concession it took to get there may just be the one the Kurds are unwilling to make.

As William Safire notes in his column today:

In his eagerness for the approval of the Shiite religious leader — and driven by desperation to get yesterday's unanimous U.N. resolution in time for the G-8 meeting — President Bush may be double-crossing the Kurds, our most loyal friends in Iraq.

[...]

In February, the Iraqi Governing Council, which included all religious and ethnic groups, hammered out its only memorable work: a Transitional Administrative Law, which laid the groundwork for a constitution to be adopted later by elected officials in a sovereign state. Most important for Kurds, who have long been oppressed by an Arab majority, it established minority rights within a federal state — the essence of a stable democracy.

But as the U.N. resolution supporting that state was nearing completion, the Shiite grand ayatollah, Ali al-Sistani, suddenly intervened. He denounced the agreed-upon law as "legislated by an unelected council in the shadow of occupation." He decreed that mentioning it in the U.N. resolution would be "a harbinger of grave consequences."

The U.S. promptly caved. Stunned Kurds protested in a letter to President Bush that "the people of Kurdistan will no longer accept second-class citizenship in Iraq." If the law guaranteeing minority rights was abrogated, Kurds would "have no choice but to refrain from participating in the central government, not to take part in the national elections, and to bar representatives of the central government from Kurdistan."

Now there's one big deterence to the Kurds forming their own government, and that's Turkey's promise to smash it to bits if they do. However, the Kurds may just be willing to risk that, and they may just be stronger than anyone thinks they are. Consider the following from Bartle Breese Bull's opinion piece in the Times today:

• The Kurds are the only people in Iraq with experience of functional government and democracy
  
• Of the 4,500 villages the Baathists are said to have destroyed, 4,000 have been rebuilt since 1991
  
• Salaries for teachers, drivers and office workers have risen in the past couple of years to $200 or more a month from $20.
  
• There are 40,000 Kurdish militiamen, or peshmerga, drilled and in uniform, the only coherent domestic armed force in Iraq

As Bartle Breese Bull concludes, it wouldn't be easy for an independet Kurdistan to survive, but "everybody else knows they have always stuck up for themselves in the past. If they don't receive their guarantees, soon there may be no Iraq — just a free Kurdistan and a burning Arabistan."

And finally, there's the most compelling reason to suspect, against the US CW that (as Safire puts it) "the Iraqi Kurds have no place else to go," that they would indeed declare their independence: they've more or less already had it for 12 years.

"We are the only people in Iraq with experience of functional government and democracy," Bruska Shaways, a Kurd who is deputy defense minister in the new Iraqi government, told me. "We want to export it to the rest of Iraq, but never at the expense of all we have earned."

This sentiment was echoed by Nesreen Berwari, a Kurdish woman who is minister of public works in the new government: "Why would we ever accept less today than we had for the last 12 years under Saddam?"

Remarkably, the Kurds are still willing to compromise, but the question of whether the UN / US will help them remains open:

The Security Council was well aware of the situation. Yet it passed a resolution that not only explicitly fails to guarantee a federal Iraq, but also abandons the interim Constitution and its commitment to a Kurdish veto over the permanent Constitution. These guarantees have long been conditions for the Kurds' willing participation in the project of iraqi unity.

Is it too late to mend the rift? Perhaps not. Assuming the worst about the United Nations resolution, some of the Kurdish leaders have told me they might be open to an alternative: having their rights enumerated in parallel statements from the United States, the United Nations and the new Iraqi government. Washington would do well to press ahead on this.

Comments

[jerseycityjoan]

i'm willing to believe that Sistani's is a moderate and moderating force in Iraq. I'm willing to believe that he's got his priorities straight: he puts life and peace above death and war.

Just because he's a good guy and the Shias' most respected clergyman doesn't mean he's always right. It sure doesn't mean or that we should jump at everything he says.

There's a difference between being accommodating and flexible and being overeager and weak. We're starting to look pretty silly as we turn on a dime whenever he opposes something.