By: Prof Goran Nowicki

May 24, 2005

In Chessboard of Iraq [1], I looked at the ongoing dynamic political game in Iraq as a game of chess and I tried to come up with a simplified analogy for representing the situation in Iraq. In this article, I will look at the regional constraints and potential opportunities in the region for establishing a unified Kurdistan state. A possible solution that could unify the two Kurdish federalist and independence seeking camps.

A mosaic inside a mosaic

Iraq is one piece of the mosaic of the Middle East and Iraq, itself is a mosaic with its own pieces, the Kurds, the Shiite and Sunni Arabs, the Turkmen etc. Iraq is a mosaic inside the bigger mosaic of the Middle East.

The mosaic of Iraq and its borders and pieces were shaped after the WWI. After the WWI, the Ottoman Islamic Empire’s mosaic was shattered and broken into pieces and a new design was made. Those who shaped the new mosaic of the Middle East where the British and the French. A foreign pattern and design was imposed on the region. This new design and order was not a natural evolution of the previous designs in the history of the region and that is the main problem in the Middle East.

The harmony of the Middle East was shattered after the WWI when an new order was introduced in the region which was not in conformity with the people’s aspirations. This happened all across the Middle East at different levels, whether we are talking about the newly created governing states out of previous governing empires, or about the formation of governing states out of cities and principalities.

Earlier we had governing empires dominating a number of principalities and now we have a number of states crushing the principalities and dominating the cities. The current problem is not about the transformation of empires into states. The problem lies in the fact that the state structure and its imposed boundaries were imposed in a top down fashion safeguarding the interests of the British and French, instead of allowing the major ethnic structures and parameters to form and create the states in a bottom up fashion. The outcome has been the ripping apart of structures with high degree of internal cohesion resisting the change.

The ethnic and religious structures in the region and their associated parameters and settings, whether Kurdish, Jewish, Shiite Arab, Sunni Arab or Persian have been the outcome of thousands of years of struggle and they are the major principles of the regional system, these principles, like a cement glue the different pieces of the Middle East together. Any design that attempts to break apart the unity of the sub mosaics of the Middle East introduces structural instability in the overall system and balance of powers, whether this is in Turkey, in Iran, in an Arab country or in Israel. A regional order which does not respect these historic principles will be demolished by the powerful historic forces of the region. And Iraq is a clear example of this display of hidden forces.

The problem of the Middle East is not only about democracy that Tom Friedman argues in his columns. "Give Arabs democracy" will not solve all problems in the Middle East. The rushed medicine of
giving democracy to Middle East or in Afghanistan, at present time is like trying to introduce 2005 style US democracy into the puritan society of the New England in early days of America. History tells us that the western countries went through a long and painful process to build democratic structures. These democratic structures were created in parallel with the development of a democratic mentality in the West and the weakening of the power of the church. One wonders whether the Middle East is ready for the democratic system of the US in 2005 without going through the democratic system of England and the painful experience in Europe?

Scrambling for a new order

Let me now try to highlight a new order for the Middle East that brings more stability to the regional system and makes most of the people happy. One can wait for the US or Britain to implement their new order and there is no guarantee that this new order will not follow the fate of post WWI Franco-British word order for the region. We need to realize that we cannot turn the clock backward and start as in the period that followed WWI and try to build a new order, we are now in a new century and we need to start from the present order and come up with a new gradual set of transformations towards a new order.

The post-Saddam Iraqi transformation has not succeeded yet and there is always the danger that it spirals out of control or falls back into another repressive system. We want to have democracy in Iraq, but there are those who don’t want the Kurdish leaders to respect the wishes of Kurdish people and separate from democratic Iraq because then the fundamentalist Shiites will control Iraq and then Iran succeeds in propagating its revolution. The present deadlock is not good for Kurdish interests at all and this is not compatible with democratic practice either. At present, a Kurd has become the president of Iraq, another has been the foreign minister of Iraq, but this is not permanent and Kurds need to use this window of opportunity.

The Kurds in Iraq want to unify with the Kurds in Iran, but the Iranians are not ready to give up Kurds for free, despite the fact that the Kurds have been the source of instability in Iran for many years. The same is true about the Kurds in Syria. The Kurds in Iraq and Syria are ready to unify with each other, but the Syrians are not ready to give up Kurds for free either, despite the troubles Kurds can cause for Syria. What price Kurds in Iraq can pay to Syria and Iran to unify Kurds? Is there a way for all the parties in conflict to win? What is a win-win strategy?

Is Syria ready to give up its Sunni Kurdish regions in exchange for a major part of the Sunni Arab population and regions in Iraq? If such a deal is made between Iraq and Syria, the Sunnis of Iraq will be happier because they will be part of an Arab government, ruled by an Arab president. Syria will be happy to solve its Kurdish problem and in exchange it will get access to the Arab region in Iraq and extend its frontiers next to the Tigris. Tigris, south of Mosul, can also become the new border between Kurds and Arabs, as has been the case through history.

The same can be done with Iran. The present regime in Iran is a Shiite fundamentalist regime and for this regime, the highest principle and fundamental value is its Shiism and not the Iranian national parameter. One wonders whether Iran is ready to exchange its Kurdish regions with the majority of Shiite regions in Iraq as a resolution to Iraq Iran war? Are the Kurdish president in Iraq and his Shiite coalition ready for such an exchange? If such a deal is made, then Iran will manage to unify the Shiite heartland of Karbala and Najaf with Qom and Mashad. It will also increase its oil resources. In exchange Iran should give up its Kurdish population and solve its Kurdish problem and at the same time opening a Kurdish front against Turkey i.e. a leverage against Turkey in the Azeri dispute. This can work out if Iran reduces its ambitions in ruling in poxy the Kurdish regions and Arab regions in Iraq by having a Shiite regime in Iraq.

If these two deals are made and worked out by Talabani, then the Shiites in Iraq and Iran will be happy, the Kurds will be happy and the Arabs in Syria and north of Iraq will be happy. Any of these two deals will be a step towards reducing the tensions in the region and creating an order in which the people of region are happier. One should note that this opportunity for Kurds only exists if there is a Shiite regime in power in Iran. A nationalist Iranian regime will not be ready to give up Kurds for Shiite Arabs.

Once a secular pro-west nationalist regime comes into power in Iran, this option will not be on the table any longer. One should warn Kurds that such a pro-west regime in Iran will also dwarf the influence of the Kurds in the region and result in them missing the present opportunity to unify at least the Kurdish regions in Iraq, Syria and Iran and create a state in the region.

If based on those two deals, a unification of Kurdistan happens, then Iraq will become Kurdistan and the Iraqi president will function as Kurdistan president too. The seat of Iraq in UN will become the seat of Kurdistan in the UN. This approach to Kurdish independence unifies the federalist and independence seeking Kurds under one umbrella and it is a short cut compared to the riskier approach of declaring independence in north of Iraq and then fighting for Kirkuk and unification of Kurdish territories of Iran and Syria with the one in Iraq. The latter appraoch is against the basic principle of war: not to fight with many enemies at the same time.

The Iraqi Arab territory province near Jordan and Suadi Arabia who share linguistic affinity with Jordan and Saudi Arabia[2] can also be given to those Arab countries in order to forge a better alliance in the region in conformity with the aspirations of the region. Only Turkey will be empty handed, if those deals are made in the region. For implementing this project, a capable Kurdish deal maker in Baghdad is needed. One should see whether Talabani can do this job.

Conclusion

The Mosaic of the Middle East needs a new design that is compatible with the aspirations of its people and the historic realities of the region. The region badly needs a new order and a political system of interacting states that is developed for the interests of the people.

The proposal in this article encourages the Kurdish parties and other players in Iraq to get involved in a process of "give and take" (Dad u Setad) to establish a harmonic working system in the Middle East. This requires the Arabs, Persians and Kurds to get involved in a constructive process and solve their historic problems by bargaining, instead of confrontation and domination. It is time for a new order and a new doctrine. As Friedman puts it, "Let’s kick over the Chessboard" [3] of Middle East and let’s play another game: a game of harmony and peace.

References

[1] Goran Nowicki, "Chessboard of Iraq", Kurdistan Observer, 24 Apr 2005.

[2] Atlas of the World’s Languages, (Routledge Reference) by Christopher Moseley (Editor), R.E. Asher (Editor), Chris Moseley, Mary Tait (Editor),
Publisher: Routledge; ISBN: 0415019257, 1994.

[3] Thomas Friedman, "Kicking Over the Chessboard", New York Times, 18 April, 2004.