In the editorial article "Battling in Many Fronts" published in
KurdistanObserver on February 5th, 2008, many issues have been described as
vital. Like the author and many other Kurds in Diaspora, I am concerned about
the inefficiencies of the Kurdish authorities in Hawler and Baghdad, yet I
remain more optimistic about the progress there and in the rest of Kurdistan.
I agree that the Kurds should be assertive and insist to receive at least 17%
budget form the central government in Baghdad instead of 13%, I order to win a
fair game. If I recall correctly, according to the voting records the Kurds
constitute about 25% of the Iraqi population and therefore should have a higher
share of the Iraqi budget, if they are still part of that country.
I do not think the central government should give a separate budget to cover the
expenses of Peshmerga forces. The tradition of Peshmerga forces has been to rely
on self and serve local people. If Baghdad finances the budget of the
Peshmerga,
these forces are under legal and moral obligation to serve the central
government, something that the current Iraqi president is doing. In case of
another possible attack by the central government on local residents of
Kurdistan, the people might not trust their protective forces that are paid by
the attackers. If they are protected by those whom they trust, they will win the
battle together.
The idea that Kirkuk should be under the authorities of KRG is very reasonable.
However, since nothing is for free, the Kirkukians need to sacrifice something
in order to join their natural alley. The worry of the opponents of KRG about
Kirkuk is not necessarily its people, but its oil. As we know, the oil is only a
temporary solution to economy and to energy. The Kurds have survived and
continue to survive without the oil. If the natural resources of Kirkuk calms
the opponents of Kurdistan down and the residents can freely choose where they
should belong, it is worth to let the oil go and save the people and honor their
choice. If the people and the oil in Kirkuk are at stake and the soul is free,
the Kurds should win the flesh and let the bone go.
The idea that the authorities in Kurdistan should avoid having a luxurious life
and general public should have access to the wealth is humanistic and
idealistic. Since the new system in Kurdistan and Iraq is based on free market
economy, it is possible those who are shrewder, more ambitious, and aggressive
take advantage of the situation and become wealthier. It is up to the
disadvantaged to use the same techniques that the authorities are using, if they
prefer to have the same life style. To my knowledge many Kurdish people would
rather have a simple life style and live within the boundaries of their
traditional ethical values and norms. It is possible that the competitive
politicians and intellectuals who are behind and feel neglected are talking
about themselves in the name of general public. At the same time this
competition is healthy and the driving force behind change and progress in any
winning society.
Last but not least, the critique that the current Iraqi president has much to
learn from other leaders is a reasonable argument. He surely should learn from
Gandhi, Mandela, and Martin Luther King to prioritize defending his own
disadvantaged people first before becoming a cosmopolitan Iraqi. However, he
does not have to learn anything from any leader that supports killing and the
death penalty. In fact his determination to reject capital punishment is what
makes him a better human being compare with his counter parts. If he kills the
criminals that killed 182000 Kurds, he has not learned anything. If he forgives
them and sends them to an island for the rest their lives without parole, he
wins the hearts and the minds of people. The world would see that the Kurds
deserve to be winning their natural rights of self determination for being able
to forgive and serve the humanity.
