In response to my article "winning in many fronts" which was a response to Dr.
Hawramani's "battling in many fronts" I received few comments. While I
appreciate and agree with parts of the commentators' views, I guess I owe to the
readers some further explanations.
In contrary to those who target the names of certain parties and personalities,
I am less concerned about the names but more about the ideas and their
implication. Although we might need to be politically correct and cautious with
what we say publicly, we know that independence of Kurdistan is the dream of
most Kurds who don't feel less than their neighbors in Turkey, Persia, and Arab
countries. If the accommodating political establishment in all parts of
Kurdistan had a choice, most likely they would vote for the same thing what I
would for, although they might compete for conservatism with the clergies and
generals in Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus, and Ankara.
In the era of nation-states Kurdish people's ultimate goal is independence. We
need to remember the Brits did not ask the Kurds if you like to be Kurdistani or
Iraqi when they created Iraq. It is not the Iraqi states that keep the Kurds and
Arab like each other but the humanity. Since the Iraqi state had violated the
basic principle of humanity, it will be disintegrated sooner or later and this
would be a good thing for both the Kurds and the Arabs. They always have the
option of abolishing their borders and unite under equal terms at a later time
when the Kurdish second class status has ended after few decades of Kurdish
statehood.
Making pishamrgas dependent on Baghdad will reinforce the second class status of
Kurds. Even if KRG can not finance pishmargas, they are better off unpaid than
being paid by Baghdad. They can work and serve people voluntarily the way the
freedom fighters of other nations have done it. I am not sure if Gandhi needed
pishmargas to liberate India. After their independence, the Kurds could choose
to have a trained police officers or guards. They might not even need an army.
Costa Rica was the first country to abolish its army. Southern Kurdistan could
become the second one, and other parts of Kurdistan could follow suit. Every
nation-state has contributed to the humanity somehow. Why shouldn't abolishing
military be one of the contributions of future Kurdish states to humanity?
Regarding Kirkuk, what I meant in my article is that the Kirkukians are better
off to have a choice and live without the bone than being bitten by few bone
seeking dangerous creatures. If Kirkuk's oil brings more war and misery instead
of prosperity, maybe the Kurds should let the oil go and come up with other
strategies to make a living as it is the case in many developed countries that
have no oil.
The revengeful killing the killers of the Kurds and any form of capital
punishment is unacceptable to me even if such a view makes me a liberal. As
Kurdish Americans we have learned form Ralph Emerson, and I hope as
Kurdish-Swiss citizen Dr. Hawramani learns from Hans Küng what liberalism is
about. Liberalism, humanism, socialism are essential for capitalism to work. If
opposing all forms of killing is considered liberal, then I am a liberal. If
believing that all humans should be treated equal and with dignity is humanism
or feminism, then I am a humanist or a feminist. If working hard to earn your
living and be independent form others but equal with them is socialism, then I
am a socialist. If preferring free market economy over state regulated one to
create a healthy competition is capitalism, then I am a capitalist. If the
Middle Eastern conservative dictators claim to believe in any of those world
views and violate the rights of others, than I rather find a new philospophy of
life. What is missing in the Middle East is for sure not conservatism. If
liberalism can end the reign of dictators let's all be liberals until liberalism
fails to answer liberty for all. At the same time if liberalism is just about
talking freely and leaving the action for action figures, we might follow a more
liberating philosophy.
