Kingmaker or King?

By: Dr. Rashid Karadaghi

Mar 11, 2005

There has been a lot of talk since the elections in Iraq and Kurdistan on January 30, 2005, about the Kurds' new-found power as a result of the elections, as the Kurdistan Alliance came in second only to the Shi'ite Coalition in both the number of votes it garnered and the number of seats it will get in the Iraqi National Assembly. And given the fact that the Kurds have never been in this kind of position, no one is happy about it except for the Kurds themselves. In fact, journalists, columnists, other opinion-makers, and politicians don't know what to make of this new reality and most of them begrudge the Kurds their new status.

A nation whose homeland is occupied by four enemy states and has been, and still is, trampled on throughout its occupied land and denied its most elementary human and national rights and has been the victim of genocide and chemical bombardment is now close to the corridors of power, so mush so that it is labeled as "kingmaker" by just about everybody.

But the question to ask is: "Is this really such a big deal? Should the Kurds settle for being "kingmakers" at this late date when they should have been "kings" in their homeland just like the Arabs, the Turks, and the Persians a long, long time ago?"  I have searched and searched to find out exactly what my people are lacking, that their neighbors possess, for them to have been disqualified to this day --- and some wish to disqualify them forever --- from ruling themselves and being masters of their own destiny and sovereign in their own homeland just like their neighbors and other nations, and I have come away empty-handed.

Without sounding chauvinistic, I would be willing to put any Kurd up against any Arab, Turk, Persian, or anyone else in any way by which we normally judge a human being and I have no doubt that my candidate would be equal to the others if not better. So, why does a Kurd have to be ruled over by someone else instead of ruling himself? Why does the world see it as all right if an Arab from Basra, Najaf, Baghdad, or Tikrit tells my people how they must live their lives and also give himself the license to kill them and burn their homes and spray them with chemical gasses, all in the name of "national unity"? (My focus here is, of course, Iraqi-occupied Kurdistan, but this also applies to Kurds everywhere in their occupied land, be it in Turkey, Iran, or Syria.)

It seems that, in the opinion of the powers that be, even under the best circumstances, all that the Kurds can aspire to is playing second fiddle to someone else. Is this because they haven't invaded and pillaged other peoples' land and done abominable things to their men, women, and children? Is it because they don't have many faces, but, rather, they say what they mean and mean what they say? Is it because they are decent in their dealings with others? I am not that naïve to think that decency and honesty and abiding by the principle of "do unto others what you would have them do unto you" would necessarily get you what you deserve, but they should count for something unless we believe that we live in a world totally devoid of morality.

I am still waiting, hopefully not in vain, for some among those who are shaping our world, be they opinion-makers or politicians, or leaders of nations to have enough guts to go against the grain and stop defending the false virtues of the age-old, meaningless clichés about "territorial integrity," "stability," or "national unity," to look at my people's predicament afresh, for if they do, it will go a long way towards ending the nightmare that has gripped this brave people who deserve to be free no less than any other nation in the world. To keep upholding the myth of "national unity" of a country where the two nations making up that country have been at constant war with each other since they were brought together by force almost a century ago by some demented minds is a crime because it amounts to calling for more wars and more bloodshed.

The informal Referendum held in Kurdistan concurrent with the elections on January 30^th of this year confirmed the results of a previous Referendum held in February 2003, which Paul Bremer, the then US Administrator in Iraq, refused to acknowledge. In the recent Referendum, 98% of the Kurdish people voted for independence. How much more evidence do the occupying states and those who are behind them need to be convinced that the Kurdish people want to be free from occupation in all its forms and want to establish their own independent state? Regardless of what the remnants of dead empires want, the international community must uphold the will of the Kurdish people and support them in their quest for independence.

Federalism is not the answer to our dilemma in Iraq. We must not trust Iraq's new rulers, or future ones, any more than we trusted the old ones, for when it comes to the Kurdish issue; they all follow in Saddam's footsteps. Having been the victims of a century of racist oppression and genocide, including chemical bombardment, the Kurds must be careful not to fall into any trap set by Saddam's heirs. Instead of recreating an Iraq that should never has been, and should never be, the Kurds must say, "Never Again"! They must say "No" to any plan short of full independence.

The Kurdish people must not compromise on their future. They must insist on ending the occupation of their land, for regardless of how many posts they get in the next government, including that of the figurehead presidency, their homeland will remain under occupation as long as they remain part of Iraq in any way, shape or form. Being "kingmaker" is not good enough for a nation that should have been "king" in their own homeland long ago.