Kurdistan will you ever arise?

In the north of Iraq, Kurdish patriotism is on standby, ready for action. Kurds continue to speak for themselves as if they already were a country, and assert territorial integrity. Yet at the same time they are also heavily involved in Iraqi politics too, sending a proportion of their peshmerga with the National Guard, and Talabani to the cabinet.

But a little incident this week has shown the weakness of this whole enterprise. Talabani, president of Iraq, went back to K’stani for a couple of days to go over “local K’stani laws” that are being laid out by Barzani’s men. The president of Iraq had to oversee local, K’stani laws. Barzani and Talabani are major opponents if truth be told.

Talabani was always more of a politician that a military man, unlike Iran-born Barzani. He joined the Kurdish Democratic Party as a young man but eventually created his own socialist Patriotic Union of K’stan [PUK], a slightly more intellectual, and less tribal entity, based in Al Suleymaniah [South K’stan, N-E Iraq]. If Iraqi politics were ever to modernize, he could well appear as leader of a multi-ethnic socialist coalition.

The Kurdish Democratic Party [KDP/PDK] however, remains a problematic, unstable tribal and military group, still operating under cheap populist politics led by the apparently charismatic Massoud Barzani. It will always be a problematic bunch because it will always seek to help and strengthen Kurdish militias in Iran and Turkey –directly bordering the KDP heartland.

Now consider this: Some Kurds claim an area the size of France!

Of course, one can’t ever befriend everyone. But that still makes a lot of people watching K’stan’s every moves. With the chance that Iraqi Kurds might one day claim a territory several times the size of Iraqi K’stan, no wonder no one wants to help them achieve any autonomy. This would undermine Turkish territorial integrity as Barzani could not resist to support the Kurdistan Worker’s Party [PKK] in Turkey. This is the very militaristic, tribal and previously Marxist organization, headed by Abdullah Ocalan.

So if the Kurds want to get serious about equal rights and self rule, they need to clarify what they will never claim; and they need to make sure that what they do claim does not mean trampling on someone else’s rights, because that will always be used against them.

Yes, they are trying to be modern and democratic. But they have to get much more serious. Turkey will not stand to fear its southern regions. And everyone will jump at any Kurdish mishap or abuse. This is where other Iraqi minorities of so-called K’stan come in. Iraqi K’stan overlaps [read: has appropriated itself] regions where Assyrians/Chaldeans, Turkmen and other minorities lived predominantly.

Throughout the last century and before, because of Kurdish, Turkish and Iraqi massacres, much of the Assyrian population has left; but there still remains contact between the Diaspora and the few hundred thousand still in the homeland. Should Kurds abuse of those people, everyone will use that as an excuse to deny their rights. In truth, Kurdistan will not be able to afford to stand on territories claimed by other undermined groups, which will attempt to replicate the Kurds’ self-rule achievements.

On Turkey and its minorities

Turkey can, when it wants, organize and concert efforts to manipulate media attention. After all, even with years of Armenian lobbies in various nations, Turkey still stands clear on the issue of the genocide which culminated in 1915, against Armenians, Assyrians and other minorities: “What Genocide?” Yet today the world has changed, and Turkey has only to benefit from an admission to the genocide.

Indeed, Turkey’s greatest aspiration for this decade, if not generation, is entry into the European Union. But for this to happen there are various obstacles. The obvious ones are Turkey’s lack of human rights respect and other lack of modernity in the whole economy in general. Other issues are opposition of some EU members. This opposition is either, as has been towards the Eastern expansion, due to economic fears, or due to religious fears. In order to further their apparent interests, these EU nations will do anything to block Turkey from entering the club.

As for the claim that the EU is a Christian club, I remind readers that most EU nations are not officially Christian, that in most of these countries, churches are weak, Christianity is falling, Islam rising. So the “Christian club” naming is bogus.

However yes, the people and politicians of the EU are often Christian and opposed to more Islam. So, many of the obstacles to entry that I have raised are exaggerated and fully embraced by the opponents of Turkey.

Whether Turkey joining the EU is a good thing is another issue which I cannot discuss at present –one debate at a time!- but if it should join the EU, here are a few tips.
Turkey needs to drop the “Christian Club” rhetoric and instead focus on really bettering itself. The eastern expansion nations did not get in by accusing the EU but by submitting to its rules.
And no doubt, the current and previous EU members are no angels, and they too have a heavy past that they should admit to. But because Turkey’s in the balance, it is the latter whose got to show some ‘grandness’. This grandness most meaningfully arises when Turkey further progresses in reforming its economy, and continue to modernize the mentality of its already forward-looking population.
But one key point, which the anti-Turkey camp has fully embraced, is admission to the genocides. Now apart for some pride, and perhaps some cash in reparation, what has Turkey to lose from this? By admitting to the genocide, it will make one giant footstep into its EU-entry campaign. Here’s how Turkey would go from petty denial to grand gesture:
-it recognizes the genocides of the Armenians and the Assyrians. This leaves its EU opponents out of gas for a while, enough to advance one round into negotiations. It also cause reconciliation, and most likely, some support towards EU entry.
-to further show that its intentions are genuine, Turkey even offers, as reparations, some of its diplomatic weight to these victim ethnicities. For example, it could offer full support and observance of the Assyrian community in Iraq. It risks nothing with this! There are only a handful of Assyrians left in Turkey, and they won’t possibly cause much hassle at all. By contrast, support of an Assyrian homeland and authority in Iraq would tilt the balance slightly towards Turkey when it comes to dealing with the Kurds and their ‘Kurdestan’. It would thus be entirely to its benefit, bettering its barter with the EU, and its superiority to the only minority that might ever cause it some trouble. It would do this mostly thanks to a seemingly grand gesture towards Armenian and Assyrians, both minor and hassle-free entities in Iraq, and possibly, in such circumstances, extensions of Turkish power in the region through mutual cooperation.

link: Assyrian Genocide

Middle Eastern Glorious Democracy Or Inapporpriate crediting

This week has been the week of optimism about democracy in the middle east. Fair enough. After all, Iraq’s elections did go surprisingly well [apart from the Assyrian voter lock-out], Egypt is promising reform, Syria is about to free Lebanon, Palestinians have an elected political leader, Saudi Arabia held some elections… Lord, could this great change be the effect of Bush’s greater middle east democracy initiative?

Well, as always I call for moderation in tone. The Economist, usually equally moderate, has the following cover page title: “Democracy stirs in the Middle East”. Bill Clinton and Bush Senior express their praise for Bush’s policy. Time magazine is of course following this trend with it’s article “three praises for the Bush doctrine”.

I have two issues with this line of thought.
First of all I think it is unfair to immediately associate the Bush doctrine with the recent tide of change in the middle east. This is a bit like those who claimed Reagan cause the Soviet Union to collapse when really, the USSR collapsed because it just didn’t work; because of internal reasons, principally. In the middle east, democracy has been peeking its nose for a while; of course, surely it must help to put American pressure on unelected Arab leaders; and the Iraqi elections surely showed, to some, that democracy is feasible in this part of the world. But in the Iraqi elections, the greatest losers were the Sunnis; the winners –Kurds and Shia- are otherwise minorities in the Arab world, Iran being the only nation with a Shia majority. In fact, most Arabs –Sunnis- probably aren’t too pleased with the defeat of their fellow Iraqi counterparts, though again, the Sunnis decided to boycott the elections, and got what they essentially asked for: no voice!
No, I think democracy in the Middle East is something that will and would have come along regardless of America’s war on Iraq. It has been a few years already since Arab satellite TV has become a mainstream. That has been a great catalyst of liberation for Arabs. It shows Arab media acting with true freedom of expression, of course usually with a tone of Anti-Americanism, but also with no fear to talk harshly of Arab leaders; and also with the power to change cultures from western Africa to Pakistan. This is change that originates from countries like Qatar or Dubei, not the USA, and it is powerful.

The second issue however, is that the change is still very weak. All this praise for what exactly? In Saudi Arabia, the [council] elections were minute, and only men voted! One baby step at a time I suppose.
In Iraq, as I said, in addition to the Sunnis, Assyrians, Turkmen, Shabak and Yezedis –nearly all of the country’s minorities- were locked out of the elections due to massive and organized fraud by Kurds and even Baghdad election officials.
In Lebanon, sadly, Hizbollah, and thus Iran by proxy have a hand ready to cause havoc should things no go as desired. And Syria has not even confirmed yet that it will fully pull back [but I do believe they will]. Again, Syria was not going to occupy Lebanon for ever; sooner or later, they would have also left, and the massive revolts show this was also due. As for Syria, the Baathist regime is no where near releasing its monopoly.
In Palestine however, optimism is worthy. Palestinian militant groups have shown, in the past, their ability to restrain themselves from striking Israel; And the prime minister Mahmoud Abbas is doing quite well at making sure they do this. Of course things are still a bit shaky, but, if Israel also keeps to its promises, things may well turn out right after all. This happened because of Arafat’s death, but admittedly, it was eased because of America’s discrediting of the man.
In Iran, the conservatives have taken over the country, however change there is also only a matter of time.
Lastly, Egypt’s leader is talking of elections but perhaps political opposition should be freed from jail first?

So a lot of this “democratic change” is lip service to Bush’s doctrine. I wouldn’t even be too surprised if the elections in Saudi, for example, were some sort of a “present” for Bush, a favor he’d ask: “please hold some dummy elections and make my doctrine look better”. A lot of the change was otherwise due anyway, and American pressure helped, but did not initiate it.

John “blood? What blood?” Negroponte

G Dubya appointed Mr. Negroponte as the new National Intelligence chief. Just a few months ago [feels like yesterday] he was made ambassador to Iraq. Why this sudden change?
Well let’s trace back to the somber and sinister past of Mr. Negroponte. This is no usual “career diplomat” as the BBC disappointingly claims. Theirs is much blood on Negroponte’s hands.
After the Vietnam War, there was a lot of embarrassment in the USA. The pretender to the title of champion of the free world became an explicit symbol of imperialism and of tyranny, given the ease with which it committed itself to a conflict that was none of its business, but also the ease with which it made use of sick chemical weapons, in mass [napalm].
In case it isn’t obvious, to me, the USA should have been punished for crimes against humanity in Vietnam. People are still born deformed, and still live ill lives and eventually die miserably because of Agent Orange, and the extent of its use. Mr. Negroponte was officer in charge of the National Security Council in Vietnam from 1971 to 1973.

After Vietnam, the USA took a break from midsized opponents and decided to stick to bullying its little South American neighbors. Mr. Negroponte thus became in 1981, the ambassador to Honduras, until 1985. Those were the early days, you might recall, of the Iran-Contras affair, in which US arms were sold to Iran and the proceeds were diverted to support the contra rebels in Nicaragua, fighting to remove the Sandinista regime, allegedly pro-Soviet and non-democratic. Mr. Negroponte also clearly had a role in ensuring that the dictatorial regime in Honduras stayed in power and supported the USA’s initiatives against popular movements in the entire region.

Later on after a bogus job related to the environment and some embassy postings, in 1996, he didn’t do much, oh well, the odd mass grave cover up at a US Army base in Panama, and so on. This and more is from
http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=John_Negroponte , absolutely great stuff.

Not so dramatic conclusion: Negroponte is more of a career spook and neo-con rather than a diplomat. So it is not surprising to see him now as Chief of National Intelligence. But I’ll tell you one thing. When one reads about the mess people like him have made in the world, one wonders what’s ahead. These are people that fit into one of the following categories, but unfortunately most likely, the second one:

1- In securing their interests, they don’t realize the damage they’re doing, and the hatred they’re causing
2- In securing their interests, they very much realize the damage and hatred generated by their outrageous actions but simply don’t care; and they trust that worse comes to worse, the USA can always bomb the heck out of any would-be trouble makers.
Some people think there’s a third category, but I don’t think it exists. Here it is:
3- In securing their interests, they believe their actions are inherently good and make the world better, but simply don’t realize their way is wrong.

These are people who see and witness the horror that other people have to endure because of their actions, and do nothing. These are people who then see the cost of that disregard in terms of violent hatred and acts against Americans, and still do nothing. If anything, this is probably all good for them. It is, after all, because of 9-11 that the USA finally got rid of the Taliban… a regime it helped create not so long ago.

Sad world we live in…

The Jihad culture: not that poor

It is a major prejudice to say that Jihad fighters are from poor backgrounds, and were underprivileged and so on.
A lot of basic research has shown that instead, the average Jihad Moe is not really poor. If he’s a Saudi man especially, chances are he is merely bored, and unemployed. He is not a stupid man at all, but having nothing better to do, he exposes himself to truly extreme and sinister individuals and their organizations.
Why do they do this? Well say they’re 25 and have been sitting at home for pretty much most of their life, and suddenly discover that others just like them are doing so much with their lives, they’re interested. Now maybe at first, when they hear that they are doing something with guns and killing, they’ll want to step back. But it will be stepping back to boredom, and uselessness.

In the book “My Jihad”, by Aukie Collins, the American ex-con, son of US army soldiers, is converted to Islam while in jail and decides to join the Jihad, in Chechnya. It is there that he sees men doing what anyone, with the least bit of greed in them, would like to do: boss other men around, and through the means of violence and weapons, lead a life seemingly totally dependent on one’s own will.

So these are not poor and desperate Saudis and others. Most of them were bored, and if desperate at all, they were just desperate for some excitement. Easily accepting the extremist rhetoric around why Muslims should help their brothers [by blowing them up?], and then by more evolved and consequently more lunatic logic, they rapidly give in. They arrange quite a bit if not most of the funding themselves, because they are not poor. Perhaps their family members approve, or respect, or simply ignore the fact that the money will go into killing people.

While I felt “My Jihad” was a decent book, the author did at times get carried away and he certainly got carried away with the whole Jihad thing. He does however, have interesting detail of fighting the Russians, and more interestingly, how the whole wheel of Jihad is completely corrupt with “Jihadists” and their targets [eg the Russians] extorting money out of each other.

This also explains why the most extreme of all Jihadists often grew up in the West or were educated in the West, or even had an opportunity to fit in and start a new life. In fact, one of the 911 hijackers did almost slip out of it, having a European girlfriend. They were neither poor nor desperate. Simply bored, a head with a vacuum, easily filled by twisted logic explaining why it’s ok to blow up mosques.

The Iraqi Election Results: A Bloody Joke

A Bloody Joke

The Iraqi election results are out, and while as I said before, it is an overall success, the need to respect the minorities is crucial.
If this was a country with a huge majority and one tiny minority, I’d have to acknowledge that the minorities would just be crushed and there would be no other way.
Iraq has one majority, the Shia, and plenty of not so minor minorities such as the Sunnis the Kurds, the Assyrians, and then still plenty of others like the Turkmen and Yezedis.

The results have come out, and it looks like the Shias rightly won a major proportion of the vote. The Kurds got a higher than expected result, coming in second. Allawi’s party is third, and in fact I find this reassuring because it means he wasn’t considered such a puppet after all.
The Sunni’s vote is absolutely minor and unrepresentative of their constituency. This is going to be a huge problem if the bigger winners decide to be, well, grand, and give the Sunni some seats anyway. It will be tempting not to do so. But one must remember, a lot of Iraq was under fire, and that didn’t prevent others from voting. While I understand the insurgency has prevented some of them to vote, a lot of Sunnis boycotted the election and as of such, their lack of representation is self imposed.

The Kurds have been well organized for years since the no-fly zone meant they had to sort things out for themselves. It also meant they were in a position of domination for years and have been able to vote comfortably, feeling safe and at home. They also voted on whether they should become an independent nation, so interest was high!

As for the Assyrians, I am most disappointed and sad for them. They were also very keen to vote and finally show that they are there, present, and numerous, but through efforts from various bodies, their votes have been minimized. As I reported earlier here, the Kurdish authority and other Muslims were responsible for providing voting equipment, personnel and ballots in provinces that were largely Assyrian. These towns and villages were home to over 300.000 Assyrians. On January 30th, they ballots did not arrive. They didn’t vote. So whatever the result for Assyrians, it is unjust and unrepresentative. You will know this anyway because they will most certainly complain about it during the next 3 days of “discussion”, unless they are given seats just like the Sunnis should be given seats.
Assyrians are the original inhabitants of Iraq. They still speak Aramaic, the language of spoken at the time of Jesus, and they are Christian –this has cost them a lot.
Even in America, the towns were the voting stations were placed was biased and unrepresentative of where the Assyrians are [Chicago, California, etc], and Assyrians represent at least 80% of Iraqis in America!
Check out www.aina.org, the Assyrian news agency for full details of how Assyrians were prevented from voting, and the daily horrors these people have had to suffer, not only recently, but for the past 1400 years!

So congrats to Shias and Kurds. Condolences to Assyrians and all others.

human rights & hollow government aspirations

Quite frequently, somewhere in the world, a government does something against human rights, and this causes outrage everywhere. The west often looks at the rest of the world as if it were the guardian of the higher status of “Human Rights Abider”.

Apart from their own heavy past, which I need not regurgitate here, I want to mention modern time fiddling with human rights, and the manipulative statements made by American and European governments.

Way before 911 [in the 60’s], it felt like a galaxy away, Malaysia’s government had issues with immigration, and allegedly, with political opposition. So they came up with the “Internal Security Act”. It didn’t really make it in the headlines again until the late 90’s when it was harshly criticized because it enabled authorities to arrest anyone with little evidence and for any period of time.

As for the political abuse claim, it was reinforced by the fact that opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim was indeed arrested under dubious circumstances, thanks to this act.

The West and Malaysia’s then Prime Minister Mahatir hated each other, because he admittedly never minced his words when it came to Europe or America.

But the fact is, most Western countries that were most accusatory of Malaysia now have their own “Internal Security Act”. America has the Patriot Act, and the UK has the Anti Terrorism Act.

It’s been proven that these acts have been misused too. In America, plainly innocent civilians are wrongly arrested and have to undergo harrowing experiences instead of nice trips in and out of “the land of the free”. Even famous people like singer Yusuf Islam a.k.a Cat Stevens was arrested!

In the UK, no doubt that people’s privacy, like yours and mine are under risk, but even worse, thanks to special agreements, people who have made no offenses to British law may be arrested and if requested, deported to the US. I must recognize however that it’s not been as bad as cross-Atlantic.

So frankly, for me, any human rights claim coming from a Western government sounds very hollow. Of course we have made a lot of progress, but Britain and the US are still very hypocritical.

Now let’s be clear. I do agree that terrorism cannot be fought by regular means since it is an irregular opponent. But when things like justice and equality get tampered with, or abused of, the whole “freedom” thing goes down the pipe. These acts should be used with extreme restraint, or at least with minimal impact to day to day lives of innocent civilians.

Otherwise this just isolates the government and currently, the Muslim world. They become two opposed and irreconcilable poles.

I can’t say that it’s entirely due to the ISA, but in Malaysia, the political fallout of the abuse of justice was the rise of an Islamist party called PAS which for a while at least, won over some northern states in Malaysia and imposed harmful Shariah laws. I say harmful because this party is attempting to arabize Malaysians who are otherwise open and kind people with their very own rich culture and identity. Whether it’s about arabizing or westernizing, beautiful cultures should resist such change.
The ISA is probably however, the reason for which Malaysia is the only large South East Asian country still free from terrorism.

But anyway. What does this mean for the West? It means Islamist elements are also likely to be bolstered by this. It means youths who would normally at least partially embrace western culture, as they should if they want to blend in, will instead seek relief from the isolation through extreme Islamism.

Please feel free to comment on this.

muslimwakeup.com