Kurdistan Observer

He had to do it again! As if his communication pipeline throughout the layers of his memory developed a sudden blockage and he failed to link his emerging thoughts with the events of the past. Either that or he couldn’t resist telling his American hosts how grateful “his majesty” was for their hospitality. Something that a refined and a thoughtful politician would rather express in private, especially, when he speaks on others behalf “probably, without having their prior consent”.

The president of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, Mr. Jalal Talabani quoted CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: [U.S. military forces would be "welcomed" at areas in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq to stage attacks against Saddam Hussein's regime]. It is apparent that such a statement contradicts Mr. Talabani’s own (so does Mr. Masoud Barzani’s) prior statements in which both had made it very clear that such an offer will be conditional upon US ‘s solid guarantees that she will protect the Kurds from Saddam Hussain’s attacks, and that any regime change will guarantee maintaining the existing freedom and the democratic rights that the Kurds of South Kurdistan have become accustomed to, as their new way of life.

In reaction to Mr. Talabani’s offer, CNN stated: “A U.S. official told CNN the Bush administration is assessing the offer. The official said the Iraqi opposition has previously made similar offers in private, but this is the first time they have gone public with an offer to use areas in northern Iraq”. At Tuesday's Pentagon briefing, Rumsfeld was asked if he was aware of the offer and if it was helpful that it was made publicly. The secretary said he doesn't recall hearing the offer in the meetings” In explicit terms, US administration officials downplayed the significance of the offer made by Mr. Talabani “a Kurdish leader” while pointing to the fact that the “Iraqi Opposition” has had “already” offered to use South Kurdistan in a land attack on Saddam’s regime. Now, the readers may wonder if Mr. Talabani was aware of such an offer being made by the Iraqi Opposition in private! Was his offer indeed a public confirmation of that private offer? Or was it personal and spontaneous? Did he speak on behalf of the Iraqi opposition having obtained their “prior” consent? Answers for these questions may become available in due time but for now the following facts are to be considered:

1. US reaction was belittling to the role of the Kurds within the Iraqi opposition.

2. Mr. Talabani revealed to Saddam Hussain that “The gray range does not exist any more” Kurds made up their mind. They will collaborate with US administration to fight and overthrow his regime.

3. US has not yet given that solid protection guarantees the Kurdish leaders “publicly” reiterated so many times.

4. Talabani “unilaterally” declared the state of War (with US and the rest of the Iraqi opposition in the picture) between the Kurds and the Iraqi regime while the Kurds do not have effective means of protection from a massive land invasion and/or use of weapons of mass destruction.

5. Mr. Talabani’s statement may well turned out to be that threshold degree of heat for Saddam’s shaky state of mind and emotions to transform from a stable to a volatile state.

CNN also stated “Talabani said he expected Hussein to respond to the Kurdish offer by attacking with chemical or biological weapons”. What possibly went through Mr. Talabani’s mind at that instant to make such a foolish statement? He expects Saddam to use weapons of mass destruction against the Kurds in responses to the Kurdish offer. That implies using such weapons at anytime Saddam chooses to retaliate “Not necessarily waiting for US troops deployment in South Kurdistan and the actual initiation of the war”. If Saddam decides to attack the Kurds tomorrow, next week or next month, what the Kurds would do to protect themselves? Has US Administration already supplied South Kurdistan with sufficient protection gear and/or vaccine? If so, the Kurds have every right to know to reduce their legitimate anxiety concerning the safety and well being of their loved ones in the event of a chemical and/or biological assault on Kurdistan (especially now that Mr. Talabani has made the land offer to US publicly). But if not, then what is the wisdom behind Mr. Talabani’s public offer? What are the benefits? What is the possible harm? What are the consequences? Does PUK leadership already have answer to these questions or they will be making it available soon?

A murderous savage who all his adult life has been searching and manipulating every possible mean to annihilate the Kurds and offer their land to his beloved Arab nation, Saddam Hussain should not be given any excuse “by the Kurds themselves” which would justify a preemptive attack against them. There are no reasons for any Kurdish political leader to gamble recklessly at the expense of his nation. Kurds still do not have any evidence if US, or for that matter any other nation cares about them for what they are. They still don’t know if they will be used and disposed of one more time or they will be appreciated and rewarded for their role in the play.

Kurds will appreciate if Mr. Talabani or any other Kurdish political figure would abstain from making any premature statements on their behalf that may hold potential for grave implications on the security and interest of the Kurdish nation. Although it could be very hard even for his closest associates to say no to Mr. Talabani, but PUK leadership and party members must find a way to get through to him and influence his leadership conduct to fall in line with the needs and demands of the Kurdish nation. A progressive and a democratic political party should not extend its leader with absolute authority to entertain his whims and do or say (in the name of his party or his nation) whatever he wishes.

To make the most of their political resources, like other nations, Kurds need to learn to adopt the principle of accountability at
all levels of party hierarchy. Recognition and implementation of such a principle is the difference between a party leadership that
is dictatorial in nature and one that is democratic.