|
Why Division?
By: Kamal H Artin Sep 8, 2005 Kurdish American Education Society
Dr. Artin is a member of Kurdish American Education Society; however, his views are not necessarily reflective of all of the members of KAES (www.kaes.us).
Despite opposing views (myself included) not to start
the war, the United States was determined to invade
Iraq and remove one of the Middle Eastern dictators in
March 2003. Many argued that the main goal of the
invasion was domination and the easy access to cheaper
natural resources, in other words, colonialism. While
occupations based on such humiliating factors might
have been true of old aristocratic European and Asian
colonial powers, I think that the main goal of the
United Sates to enter any foreign soil has been to
liberate people from brutal dictators, and create an
opportunity for them to become equal partners in the
global free market economy. It is for such reasons
that this contemporary empire and its people are so
successful in their political or humanitarian actions
as evidenced by ending absolutism in various part of
the world or being the most efficient and generous
providers of humanitarian aid abroad (Tsunami) or at
home (Katrina). Cynical intellectuals might ignore
these facts and the fact that the majority of people
in the world admire this empire including majority of
the voters in Iraq who welcomed the invasion and
regime change by their participation in a democratic
election in January 2005 when they elected their
representatives.
Unfortunately many of those elected representatives in
Iraq now seem to deviate from the ideals that
Americans thought and fought for. They intend to keep
a an outdated British made dysfunctional and
artificial union called Iraq with whatever it takes
and legitimize it with a constitution based on Islamic
law. Such an Iraq would likely be worse than the one
under Saddam; it might legitimize violation of the
rights of Kurds, non-Muslims, women, and other
minorities. It will disappoint American tax payers in
general and families of the soldiers in particular who
might have hoped for an Iraqi state in which the
culture of free market economy flourishes and any
discrimination based on ethnicity, religion, gender,
etc. disappears.
Why not an Arab Iraq? Calling Iraq (and Syria) an Arab
state is the same as calling Turkey a Turkish Sate,
Iran a Persian state, Canada an English state,
Switzerland a German state, ex-Czechoslovakia a Czech
state, ex-Yugoslavia a Serbian state, and ex-Soviet
Union a Russian State. While those states might have
or had a dominating majority, calling them by the name
of their majority was and is an insult to their other
inhabitants. This is one of the reasons that some of
those states no longer exist in their discriminatory
form. Iraqi Arabs, regardless of sectarian orientation
are entitled to call their territory whatever they
desire. Calling all of the Iraqi territory an Arab
state instead of at least a bi-national federation is
keeping status quo and is an insult to the Kurds,
whose expectation for the liberation was to be able to
determine their own destiny and an end to any form of
discrimination.
Why not an Islamic Iraq? There is some clear
historical evidence that the mixture of Islam and
state is dangerous or at least non-adaptive. Comparing
Shah to Ayatollahs in Iran, Russians to Talibans in
Afghanistan, and the World trade center prior and
after 9/11 are self explanatory evidences that
political Islam is one of the worst enemies of
liberty, peace, and prosperity. If for no other
reason, the fact alone that at least 50 percent of the
population in countries with a fundamental Islamic law
have to cover themselves form head to toe, should be a
warning to those who oppose any form of dictatorship.
Fortunately the Taliban are gone and it is unlikely
that Bin Laden can put Saudi Arabia in a worse
situation than it already is. However, the unfortunate
Iranians are still paying for their mistake of their
Islamic revolution in 1979; now the ayatollahs have
become even more sophisticated and assigned a
non-ayatollah to lead the country, one who is more
fanatic, controlling, and violent than ayatollahs
themselves. The only hopes is that the pressure under
the new Iranian president might have a paradoxical
effect and expedite a peaceful social movement to end
the reign of political Islam in Iran.
Let's give some of the ayatollahs the benefit of the
doubt and assume that moderate political Islam is
different than Islamic fundamentalism. However, the
motto of all forms of Islam is the same: "Allah is the
only god and Muhammad is his messenger". Under this
leading motto, it is unclear what will happen to those
who believe in a different higher power than the one
created fourteen-centuries ago? What will happen to
those Jews who believe they are chosen by their own
god? What will happen to those Christians who believe
that Jesus is their savior? What will happen to those
who have substituted nature or humanity for god or
those who question the existence of any form of god? A
constitution based on Islam or any other religion is
dictatorial, allows violation of human rights, creates
a culture of hatred and discrimination, and is an
insult to most free minds in the 21st century. No
doubt that humanitarian and ethical aspect of all
religious have guided many individuals and benefited
the society. However, the mixture of religion and
state has caused many people to distance themselves
not only from religion but from spirituality too.
Therefore, another state based on religious doctrine
can not be an answer to any contemporary problem.
Now the main question is how does one satiate the
majority of people who prefer an Arab and Islamic
state in Iraq? Using non-democratic means to prevent
such a mishap is not the option. I am not familiar
with any other option but to allow people to make
their own choices. This might lead to a division of
the state which has been described by paranoid
factions of developing countries as the politic of
"divide and conquer". Yet, in such a case the only
conquerors that come to my mind are the people who
have choices. The size of a country does not seem to
be a factor in stability, prosperity, and peace among
its inhabitants. Division could solve many unresolved
issues and lead to equality, which is a prerequisites
for a more advanced voluntary union. It will give the
opportunity to Shiites in the region to fulfill their
unresolved conflict of having a second state to have a
bigger share of power among many Sunni states. It will
give Sunnis Arabs an opportunity to learn what it
means to be a minority either under the Sunni Kurds or
under the Shiites Arabs or a majority on their own as
a small country without oil. It will fulfill the
ultimate objective of the Kurds of having an
independent Kurdistan at least in one part of their
homeland.
An independent Kurdistan might be advantageous not
only for the Kurds but for all involved parties. The
fundamentalists do not have to be worried about the
contamination of their pure Islamic land if the
"infidels" leave the area and settle in a free
Kurdistan. A free Kurdistan will add to the balance of
having another friendly state towards the West similar
to Israel. A free Kurdistan will be another welcoming
home for American and European forces that are very
unwelcome in most other parts of the Middle East. A
free Kurdistan will provide a more balanced and
appropriate long-term exit strategy for foreign
forces. A free Kurdistan will also become a refuge for
other free thinkers and believers of various religions
and ideologies who are not welcome in the areas
dominated by fundamentalists. However, a free
Kurdistan cannot come to existence as long as the free
world remains ignorant and tolerates discrimination
against Kurdish people.
|
