First in Peace instead of Next in War

By: Kamal H. Artin,

Kurdish American Education Society

May 30th 2005, Sequoia National Park, California

Some well-intentioned but probably not so well informed Persian friends have criticized Kurdish ethnocentricity; they argue that all Iranian ethnic groups are under equal oppression and that the Kurds are being taken advantage of to fight others. The argument seems to be reasonable, yet it ignores the fact that Kurds are under dual oppression. It is no secret that the central governments in Baghdad, Damascus, Ankara, and Tehran have been abusive toward most of their citizens in general and sabotaged any Kurdish progress toward freedom in particular. Thank to the changes in the world politic, likely they would no longer be able to continue their oppression. Soon creation of a Kurdish State in Northern Iraq becomes inevitable. With this hope alive, I would like to explain the reasoning behind Kurdish ethnocentricity at this stage. 

Kurds have proven many times that they are against no other nations but for all of them in many aspects. Regarding Persians, those Kurds who have learned the language of Ferdosi, Hafez, Khayam, Shamloo, and Dawlatabadi must be fool not to appreciate the beauty and power of Persian language. Although Kurdish is an Indo-Iranian language, rarely a Persian bothers to learn Kurdish and appreciate the works of Ehmede Xani, Goran, Mawlawi Tawgozi, Shirko Bekkas etc. They could argue Kurdish is not appealing to them and that they rather learn Arabic, the main language of the Middle Esat; however, why should the Kurds themselves be denied to learn their own language at school? Usually if one goes to a foreign land, he or she will respect its people and attempts to learn their language. Why should the Kurds in their homeland learn the language of those who are sent by central governments to tell them what to do?

In order to make Kurdish scenario more understandable to our Persian friends, I try to look at their own scenario. Like many other Middle Eastern ethnic groups, Persians have inhabited Iranian plateau for millennia and have much in common with them. Unlike their extremists, most Persians are non-fanatics but tolerant people. Like Israelis and Kurds, Persians have been the targets of hatred by other extremists in the region; according to a bitter rumor, Saddam had blamed god for making a mistake in creating flies, Jews, and Iranians. Yet, Persians have integrated Arabic culture in their life and many of them like Arabs consider Islam to be the answer to their spiritual well being. Like their original spiritual leader, Zardosht, many Persians are flexible to seek knowledge about various aspects of truth; like doubter or agnostics of all nations many of them question the validity of the full truth of any ideology, yet acknowledge that the noble side of all religions serves the humanity, and finally like other progressive people many Persians do not approve the violent behavior of their Emperors and Ayatollahs and prefer a secular and democratic state that guarantees liberty and justice for all!

Yet, Persian governments have done much harm to all Iranians. Changing Persia’s name to Iran in early 1930s sounded pluralistic; however, the goal was not to promote tolerance and equality but to marginalize or eliminate the minorities. The mission was partially accomplished but Persian identity was also deluded and almost lost; this loss as well as an expedited but oppressive modernization plan were among the causes of Iranian revolution in 1979. Many hopefuls expected that justice will finally prevail, but soon became disappointed. The country became the Mecca for extreme Islam. A pre-civilized approach to problem solving became the law. Some people found the sign of their god’s representative in the moon; martyrdom, hostage taking, and revolution export became earthly and heavenly rewarded behaviors; imprisonment and torture intensified; threats, terror, and assassinations of free minds became a routine; this malignancy became a competitive adventure in the region and spread to the rest of the world until few countries after 9/11 decided to make an effort to stop it.

Meanwhile many Persians seem to have regretted the chaotic uprising of the late 1970s when their hopes of moving one step forward, resulted in them actually going a few steps backward. Some have even become appreciative of the “Great Satan” for possibility of using force against force, a more understandable method of conflict resolution by the extremists in the Middle East. However, many Persians are rightfully worried, if the method of force by the West were extended to Iran in the name of eliminating potential nuclear threats, what would happen to their loved ones? This is a legitimate universal worry and deserves attention of those who are fortunate enough to be free and have a lesser amount of other basic worries to make suggestions. Although such suggestions by the beach, couch, or online “freedom fighters” or Capitol Hill lobbyists might be easier in theory than in practice, it is still worth mentioning. With this in mind, I suggest that each Iranian ethnic group build its own national alliance and recognizes other group’s legitimate rights. Since politically the Persians have been the most fortunate among Iranians, they should pioneer in building a Persian Alliance that opens a free dialogue, acknowledges the past mistakes, and apologizes to all minorities and victims of their Persian governments whose rights has been denied.

In order to make their country first in making the peace and not next in continuing the war, Persians must think about a greater future for all now! They must learn from self actualized intellectuals such as Turkish sociologist, Dr. Ismail Besikci, Arab law Professor, Dr. Munther Al-Fadul, and American federal administrative judge Dr. Ralph Fertig who support the self determination right of all people, including Kurds. Such a sympathetic and progressive approach by Persians might create a culture of trust in Iran and in the Middle East. It might motivate all Iranian minorities to take an active role in determining their destiny first and vote for a voluntary interdependent federative union in the future. It might create an atmosphere for the rich Persian heritage to be revitalized and might become complimentary to the richness of other ancient cultures in the Middle East and around the world. It might stimulate creation of one or a few Persian republics among other Iranian republics. It might create a healthy competition among other countries to end their pathological race of eliminating each other. It might convince the civilized world that the Middle Eastern nations have reached a developmental level comparable to some European nations such as Czechs and Slovaks. It might create an atmosphere for people in the Middle East to appreciate the sacrifices of the liberating forces and perhaps welcome them to stay as their guests in the region, or gracefully, with hugs and flower, accompany them to the airport to return to their families back at home and have a memorable day on their memorial day.