Kurds threaten to bolt Iraq government

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Kurds threaten to bolt Iraq government
11
Wed, 06-09-2004 - 11:49am

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apmideast_story.asp?category=1107&slug=Iraq


Wednesday, June 9, 2004 · Last updated 7:20 a.m. PT


Kurds threaten to bolt Iraq government


By TODD PITMAN
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER


BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Kurdish parties warned Wednesday that they might bolt Iraq's new government if Shiites gain too much power. In another challenge to the interim administration, saboteurs blew up an oil pipeline, forcing a 10 percent cut in electricity output.


Kurdish fears of Shiite domination rose after the Americans and British turned down their request to have a reference to the interim constitution - which enshrines Kurdish federalism - included in the U.N. resolution approved Tuesday.


The country's most prominent Shiite leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, rejected any mention of the interim charter in the resolution. Shiites oppose parts of the charter that give Kurds a veto over a permanent constitution due to be drawn up next year.


Meanwhile, clashes persisted Wednesday around Fallujah, a rebellious Sunni Muslim city west of Baghdad. Four members of an Iraqi force given control of the city last April were wounded when a mortar round exploded.


The pipeline attack appeared to be part of an insurgent campaign against infrastructure to shake confidence in the new government, due to take power on June 30.


The blast occurred about 9:30 a.m. near Beiji, 155 miles north of Baghdad, said Col. Sarhat Qadir of the Kirkuk police. Huge fireballs rose into the air, witnesses said.


Oil Ministry spokesman Assem Jihad told Dow Jones Newswires that the attack would not effect exports from the northern oil fields. However, the blast cut supplies to the Beiji electric power station, forcing a reduction of 400 megawatts in power generation, Jihad said.


Iraq now produces around 4,000 megawatts. Power cuts in the country have now reached more than 16 hours a day, making it difficult to cope with soaring heat, which is already more than 100 degrees.


The U.S.-run coalition had made its ability to guarantee adequate electricity supplies a benchmark of success in restoring normalcy to Iraq. However, sabotage and frayed infrastructure have impeded efforts to eliminate power outages, especially in the capital.


Coalition officials fear that insurgents may step up attacks on infrastructure targets to undermine public confidence both in the U.S. occupation authority and the new regime.


The new U.N. resolution, adopted unanimously by the Security Council, affirmed international support for the new Iraqi government.


Both major Kurdish parties - the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan - conferred Wednesday to consider a response to the decision not to refer to the interim constitution in the resolution. The interim charter, adopted in March, affirms the principle of federalism.


Kurds fear that the interim constitution, which the Americans hailed as the most progressive in the Middle East, will be sidelined once the occupation ends and the Shiite clergy gains ascendancy.


The Kurds have been running their own autonomous mini-state since 1991, and many Kurds would prefer their own independent country.


At the United Nations, Secretary-General Kofi Annan sought to reassure the Kurds, saying that while the resolution doesn't refer to the constitution, it "does have language that refers to a united federal democratic Iraq."


Diplomats said reference to the interim constitution was omitted because of opposition by al-Sistani. Shiites are believed to compromise about 60 percent of Iraq's 25 million while Kurds number around 15 percent.


In a statement addressed to the U.N. Security Council earlier this week, al-Sistani warned that mentioning the interim charter in the resolution would be "an act against the will of the Iraqi people and will have dangerous results."


Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, the first Kurd to hold the post, said he had lobbied unsuccessfully for an acknowledgment of the charter during his meetings at the Security Council last week.


But he said he was satisfied that the "spirit" of the charter was in the final resolution.


Still, Kurdish leaders in Iraq were unconvinced.


"Now our future is ambiguous," said Nesreen Berwari, a Kurdish member of the interim government. "The interim constitution would have been the clear and bright roadmap to the all components of the Iraqi people."


Berwari said she would resign if asked to do so by the Kurdish leadership.


"Until now, we have not called for a separate Kurdistan, but if the Kurds' rights are not recognized, then we will take political measures that serve the interests of the Kurdish people," said Mulaha Bekhtiyar of the PUK. "For the time being, we will commit to a united Iraq."


Bekhtiyar said that the Kurds would not agree to the Shiites having the "lion's share" of any government.


Meanwhile, some Iraqis welcomed the new resolution, which the United States and Britain had to repeatedly alter to accomodate demands that the interim government be given greater authorities. Iraqis have worried that the continued presence of U.S.-led troops will limit what is supposed to be the new administration's full sovereignty.


"Full sovereignty won't come overnight particularly because Iraq has been subject to threats and terrorist acts," said Baghdad resident Tareq Rasheed. "As far as I'm concerned, the troops could stay, but outside the cities, until the government is able to control security."


But another Baghdadi was against any foreign interference in Iraq. "I don't welcome any resolution issued by the Security Council regarding Iraq. All their resolutions are fabricated and they impose them on the Iraqi people," Abdul-Karim Hassan said.


In other developments:


- A group holding two hostages - a Turk and an Egyptian - threatened to kill the captives after Friday prayers unless their home governments condemn U.S. actions in Iraq. The threat was made in a statement distributed in Fallujah.


- Insurgents attacked a Baghdad city council member Tuesday, wounding him and killing two of his bodyguards, the military said. The incident is under investigation.

cl-nwtreehugger


Community Leader:  In The News & Sports Talk
I can also be found at Washington, TV Shows & QOTW


Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Wed, 06-09-2004 - 5:33pm
I was really affraid that Bush would turn his back on the Kurds. I posted an article from the Asian Times on line on War on Terrorism board.

http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-ivIraq&msg=2840.1&ctx=0

There are links to excellent information there. The situation extends further than Iraq. The Turkish Kurds have already withdrawn from the peace treaty with the Turks. The area that should be Kurdistan encompases about 15-20 million people, the territory covers Iran, Syria and Turkey as well as some of the previous Soviet Union countries. Really these people should have been given their own country when the Ottoman empire was divided up. Historically, they have been treated terribly.

Here's an Op-Ed from NYT

The Resolution's Weakness

By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Published: June 9, 2004

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.

Not a single U.S. soldier has been killed in the area of northern Iraq patrolled by the pesh merga, the army of Kurdish Iraqis who have brought order to their region. Savaged by Saddam's poison-gas attacks in the 80's, Kurdistan was abandoned by the first President Bush to Saddam's vengeance after the first gulf war. When our conscience made us provide air cover in the 90's, the Kurds amazed the Middle East by creating a free, democratic mini-state within despotic Iraq.

These Kurdish Sunni Muslims — an ancient ethnic group, neither Arab nor Turk — are one-fifth of Iraq's population. They cheered our arrival and set aside old dreams of independence, asking for reasonable autonomy in return for participating enthusiastically in the formation of the new 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."

Massoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani, the Kurdish leaders, appealed to Bush's sense of loyalty: "We will be loyal friends to America even if our support is not always reciprocated. . . . If the forces of freedom prevail elsewhere in Iraq, we know that, because of our alliance with the United States, we will be marked for vengeance."

I ran this pained appeal past John Negroponte, who will move from his post as our U.N. representative to be our ambassador to the new Iraq, at his farewell lunch yesterday. He pointed to a line in the preamble to the U.N. resolution welcoming an unspecified commitment "to work towards a federal, democratic, pluralist and unified Iraq, in which there is full respect for political and human rights."

Fine "preambular" words, but outside the action section of the resolution. That eviscerates the protective law, just as Sistani demanded.

Why do we take our proven allies for granted? The conventional White House wisdom holds that the Iraqi Kurds have no place else to go. It's an article of faith that if the Kurds tried to break away and set up an independent Kurdistan, with oil-rich Kirkuk as its traditional capital, Turkey, on its border, would never permit it — lest murderous separatists among its own Kurdish population of 12 million get a new lease on death.

Iraqi Kurds blundered last year in letting old grudges prevent Ankara from sending 10,000 troops south to help the coalition police Iraq. But since then, Kurdish leaders have gone all-out to establish economic and political relations with "our friends to the north."

A Turkish construction company is building a $40 million airport in Sulaimaniya, and Kurds have been steering contracts to Turkish engineers to study sports stadiums and tunnels through the mountains. Despite grumbling from some anti-Kurdish generals, Turkey's prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has been responsive. The influential Ilnur Cevik of the Turkish Daily News urges "more attention to Iraqi Kurdish sensitivities" and asks: "Do the Arabs realize what they are getting into?"

Our Kurdish allies will do their bit to hold Iraq together. But in appeasing the south, don't push the north too far.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/09/opinion/09SAFI.html




Edited 6/9/2004 5:34 pm ET ET by hayashig

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Wed, 06-09-2004 - 7:04pm

Why do we take our proven allies for granted? The conventional White House wisdom holds that the Iraqi Kurds have no place else to go.


So we hold them hostage to our goals...


Massoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani, the Kurdish leaders, appealed to Bush's sense of loyalty: "We will be loyal friends to America even if our support is not always reciprocated. . . . If the forces of freedom prevail elsewhere in Iraq, we know that, because of our alliance with the United States, we will be marked for vengeance."


We can see who's taken the higher ground here, and it wasn't us.


I ran this pained appeal past John Negroponte, who will move from his post as our U.N. representative to be our ambassador to the new Iraq, at his farewell lunch yesterday. He pointed to a line in the preamble to the U.N. resolution welcoming an unspecified commitment "to work towards a federal, democratic, pluralist and unified Iraq, in which there is full respect for political and human rights."

Fine "preambular" words, but outside the action section of the resolution. That eviscerates the protective law, just as Sistani demanded.


More spin and double talk...sigh...

cl-nwtreehugger


Community Leader:


iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Thu, 06-10-2004 - 1:47pm
<>

This assignment is a disaster waiting to happen, just like Chalabi--history usually predicts the future. This man has no ability in a trying situation.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Thu, 06-10-2004 - 2:16pm
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/177223_iraqkurds10.html

Kurds will have voice in constitution -- for now

Thursday, June 10, 2004


By DEXTER FILKINS
THE NEW YORK TIMES


BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said yesterday that his government would adhere to the interim constitution agreed to in March until elections are held next year, in an effort to defuse, at least temporarily, a looming crisis with the Kurdish leadership.


In a statement issued by his office late in the evening, Allawi's spokesman, George Hada, declared the new government's "full commitment" to the interim constitution until democratic elections are held later this year or in January.


The statement from Allawi's office followed a threat this week by Kurdish leaders to pull back from the Iraqi state and possibly secede. The leaders were alarmed after officials in New York failed to include the interim constitution in the U.N. Security Council resolution, approved Tuesday, on the return of sovereignty to the Iraqis.


The Kurds are worried that without the protections in the interim constitution, they might lose the broad autonomy they have garnered since 1991 under American military protection. The interim constitution recognizes the autonomy of the Kurdish region and grants the Kurds extraordinary powers to protect it.


But the commitment made by Allawi will likely only postpone a solution. His statement binds the new Iraqi government to the constitution only during "the provisional period," which will end when elections are held.


Many Shiite leaders say it is at that point, when the Shiites will likely hold a majority of the seats in the national assembly, that they would remove the language that grants the Kurds effective veto power over the permanent constitution.


That language was a central component in the compromise that persuaded the Kurds last March to agree to the interim constitution -- and to affirm a commitment to the Iraqi state.


The statement issued by Allawi's office followed a flurry of activity involving Shiite political leaders and the country's most powerful Shiite religious leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani. Iraqi officials say al-Sistani, who earlier this week warned the Security Council against including the interim constitution in the sovereignty resolution, tried to reassure Kurdish leaders.


Kurdish leaders, most of whom have left Baghdad and gone to their homes in the north, reacted cautiously to Allawi's statement. The top Kurdish leaders spent much of the day discussing the future, which they have increasingly suggested may include secession.


© 1998-2004 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

cl-nwtreehugger


Community Leader:


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Thu, 06-10-2004 - 3:46pm

I would think it only

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Thu, 06-10-2004 - 6:16pm
<>

This column reinforces the opinion expressed, but I thought it interesting coming from a Kurd.

Kurdistan: No more Mr Nice Guy

By Ahmed Karadaghi

As we watched the unveiling of the new United Nations Security Council resolution on Iraq, number 1546, the hopes of many Kurds all over the world faded as they knew that slowly but surely the process of betrayal had started all over again - a process they had hoped to avoid at least once from their so-called allies. The council decided against endorsing the interim constitution that guarantees federalism and spells out the Kurdish minority community's rights. Alas, the students of Henry Kissinger and the neo-conservatives in Washington have decided to swing away from the Kurds and play politics in tune with Shi'ite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, somewhat similar to how they switched sides in 1978 in Iran, turning their back on the Shah - and we all know how that turned out for the US and other Western countries.

The question now is not what has happened or who to blame, but what the Kurdish nation can do to keep what is rightfully theirs, a political solution to a very complicated landscape surrounded by several hostile neighbors and accompanied by allies that have been more damaging to the Kurdish cause than beneficial.

Kurdish leaders may not be perfect to some, which is natural in the political arena. We have the supporters and we have the harsh lifelong critics, similar all over in the world of politics. But Kurdish leaders have sent out a very bold political message, saying they will not partake in a government that is not backed by a UN resolution stating the rights of the Kurdish people in Iraq clearly and explicitly.

Kurdish political leaders Jalal Talabani and Massoud Barzani have addressed the American president in a letter sent June 1, stating that they still consider themselves allies but they will not take this lying down any longer, thus boycotting the Iraqi interim government in Baghdad. They have explained the seriousness of the matter in several interviews with plain and simple words: the integrity and sovereignty of a unified Iraq is at stake. The Kurdish leaders have made a point that neither they - nor the Kurdish nation - is willing to be the nice guy any more.

I believe the next step has already been taken by the Kurdish leaders, what they do next will decide just how big that step will turn out to be.

Let's start by imagining the following scenario and watch it unfold. Should the Kurds pull out of the government, first it would be a major blow to the US and the interim Iraqi government. I mention this for the pure reason that most of the senior political figures with any idea of what is needed for the future of Iraq and with any political background know that Kurdish representation is needed in the so-called interim government. When it comes to rebuilding a nation torn apart along ethnic lines, years of war and embargoes, you need to know what you are doing. Being an extremely rich Iraqi exile with expensive suits is not really a suitable prerequisite for the job. The only true politicians in this new government would actually be the Kurds, who know how to rebuild a nation from scratch as they have shown in their stable and thriving region the last 13 years. The Shi'ites know this and so do the Sunnis. The Americans also know this very well, as they have the opportunity to see the stability and economic growth for themselves, as they vacation their troops there on a rotational basis, especially their officers.

Another reason would be that the Kurds make up 25% to 30% of Iraq's population. Without any representation in the new interim government from Kurdistan, it is guaranteed to fail miserably.

The ball is rolling in our future scenario, the next step would be an exhibition of Kurdish strength and determination. We have seen how the Kurds have been able to assemble 1.6 million signatures for a call to a referendum on the Kurdish right to self-determination. What the world hasn't seen yet would be a display of the 60,000 strong, well trained and disciplined Peshmerga forces that Iyad Allawi - the interim Iraqi prime minister - so carelessly calls "militias". Complete with a military parade down the main cities of Kurdistan with their leaders and thousands of Kurdish people cheering them on, this scenario would be accompanied by all the heavy artillery and display of weapons the Kurds have been able to confiscate from the Iraqi army in the past 13 years. This would make headlines around the world, even though the well-engineered letter of Talabani and Barzani did not. But remember, no more playing Mr Nice Guy.

Then to make the step a major stride for the Kurdish cause, the two main political parties schedule region-wide local elections, invite every single journalist they have ever known. And even better they schedule the Kurdish federal elections before the Iraqi elections of January 2005, unite the two Kurdish administrations, declare Kirkuk a Kurdish city and name a president, parliament and prime minister with a complete Kurdish cabinet.

Now here we stop our scenario dealing with possible future events and, correct me if I am wrong as I am no politician, but if this were to happen - and I am sure the Kurdish political leaders must have thought of this if I can - think of the repercussions this would have on the Bush administration. Could it support another policy failure in Iraq, could it withstand to be the cause of separation of the Iraqi state and live with the backlash from Arab oil producing countries? Or worst-case scenario, could the Bush administration survive elections while stuck in the middle of a civil war in Iraq?

Now again this scenario of events sounds like a good plan for the Kurds as we implement the thoughts on paper, but as any savvy political analyst would argue, for the Kurds to actually execute their political threats would be mere suicide as they are surrounded by hostile neighbours: Turkey, Iran and Syria. The Shi'ite Arabs and Sunni leaders they helped to regain power in Iraq have turned their backs on them. And the one ally they thought would repay them for their loyalty and fallen martyrs along side American troops has betrayed them yet again.

But again it seems one thing political analysts cannot analyze very well is that the Kurdish people are a proud nation and when they are surrounded with all odds against them they do not go down without a fight, as we have seen throughout history. Washington will witness a major political loss in the region and at home, where it can hurt the most for the current administration especially when the Kurdish parties decide to unite their efforts to show their political and military strength. The Kurdish leaders may have their political flaws, but they have no doubt they can go up against the best of them, both Talabani and Barzani have spent their entire lifetime working for the Kurdish cause and they are still here today at the forefront of Kurdish, Middle Eastern and world politics.

I believe that lack of interest in the Kurdish cause and the lack of respect for the Kurdish leaders will backfire in the face of the Bush administration and their coalition partners. They started this wrong and now they seem to be ending this wrong. Most importantly, the Kurds are the only allies the Americans have in the region, Kurdish leaders and their political parties have been a pillar of support for the US chief administrator in Iraq, L Paul Bremer, and coalition forces in Iraq. To put them up in a corner and turn your back on them is political suicide for the coalition. We pray someone in the Bush administration will acknowledge that before it is too late.

Ahmed Karadaghi is a Kurdish freelance writer currently living in Canada. He worked in northern Iraq in humanitarian aid, relief and reconstruction from 1991 to 1996. He also currently works in the Internet and telecommunications industry.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FF11Ak01.html

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Fri, 06-11-2004 - 11:09am

Good article. I noted that there wasn't any mention of oil. Is it

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Fri, 06-11-2004 - 11:45am
The only mention I have heard with respect to oil, is that Kurds want control of the oil wells in Kirkuk. This is in their terrority, although as the article indicates, the Kurds were chased out. Have read one article that says they are slowly drifting back, but not successfully since the Sunis control the city.

Here's a "letter to the editor" about another valuable resource.

Re Kurdistan: No more Mr Nice Guy by Ahmed Karadaghi . May I point out something which I earlier was afraid was going to happen, the fact that Kurdistan will have "independence problems" for a long time to come? Analysis: The US occupation of the area is about the control of the region's water. Kurdistan will not now nor in the nearby future become independent. Kurds will not rule themselves for a long time to come. At least not as long as neighboring countries need Kurdistan's water. The water in the area is their lifeline, and much more expensive than oil. The Tigris stream is made up of five long rivers from the mountainous regions. The Euphrates flood is another very important water supplier from those life-spending sources. In 1991 a huge dam and irrigation system was built. more than US$10 billion and situated in the Kurdish region of Turkey. Turkey had already signed an agreement with Israel to sell water, and thus secure the future delivery of Kurdish water to Israel. It's understood that Turkey receives Israeli weapons in return.

Henk Ruyssenaars

Editor, Foreign Press Foundation

Netherlands (Jun 11, '04)

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Letters.html

Interesting we don't hear much about water. Turkey will not give up it's Kurdish lands without a war.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Fri, 06-11-2004 - 12:03pm

>"slowly drifting back, but not successfully since the Sunis control the city."<


Yes I've read this..... something like the situation in Israel where Jews are now living in houses & on land

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Fri, 06-11-2004 - 12:15pm
<>

That's why I visit daily. I actually enjoy reading most of the articles, broadens the perspective about an area I'm interested in--Asia. It isn't published on the weekends or holidays, and I actually am disappointed without my daily fix. :-)

Pages