*EPF110 06/17/2002
Panelists Discuss Kurdish Role in Post-Saddam Iraq
(Federalism, Kurdish autonomy debated by scholars and activists) (1540)

By Stephen Kaufman
Washington File Staff Writer

Washington -- Gathering representatives from a broad spectrum of Iraqi organizations and groups opposed to the regime of Saddam Hussein, the American University's Center for Global Peace held a conference in Washington June 8 to discuss the role of Iraq's Kurdish population in anticipation of a post-Saddam era.

"The struggle of the Kurds is held dear by all Iraqis, as they consider it as part of their national struggle for freedom, justice and legitimacy," said Hamid Al Bayati of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

Bayati and fellow Arab, Turkish, American, and European experts joined representatives of Iraq's Kurdish community in describing the Kurdish area in northern Iraq as "a democratic region in a country ruled by a dictatorship."

Unlike their compatriots in the rest of Iraq, the Kurds have enjoyed what National War College Professor Peter Galbraith described as "de facto independence" from Baghdad since the end of the 1991 Gulf War, as a result of their successful rebellion against Saddam Hussein and the enforcement of the northern "no fly zone" by U.S. and British forces.

Central to the discussion of all of the conference speakers was the issue of "federalism" in which the Kurdish areas in Iraq would continue to have meaningful local power to run their own affairs in a post-Saddam era, while still answering to a government in Baghdad.

"Advocates of federalism point to its advantages: stability, social justice and equitable distribution of power and wealth. Skeptics worry that federalism dilutes the unity of a state, and may lead to an eventual breakup," said Mudhwar Shawkat of the Iraqi National Movement, who called for a serious study and debate on the topic in order to reach a broad consensus upon precisely what level of autonomy would be asked for and granted in a federalist system.

Mohammad Sabir of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) noted that Kurdish self-government has already been in place for the past 11 years, with no link to the central government in Baghdad.

"Iraqis of all backgrounds have come to realize that the old political order cannot be maintained. ... [Kurdish self-government] is very significant and must carefully be evaluated by observers of Iraq. ... A federal setup should be interpreted as reintegrating Iraqi Kurdistan with the rest of Iraq, rather than how some people refer to it as the separation of Iraq," said Sabir.

The various delegates were united in their praise of what Kurdish self-government had been able to accomplish since 1991. Hamid Al Bayati commented that the experience in northern Iraq "shows that the Iraqi people can rule themselves in a far better way than the rule of Saddam."

"In what is referred to as 'Liberated Iraq,'" said the PUK's Sabir, "the Kurdish people are enjoying their freedom as never before. The regional administration has helped create an environment where there is freedom of speech, freedom of press, and a freedom for one to choose his or her own ideology. Truly a semblance of civil society far greater than any other Arab country is emerging. With this civil society comes stability, as has been the case in the recent years."

Hoshyar Zebari of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) said that what the Kurds had achieved "could be a model" for the rest of the country.

Looking at the broader picture, Hatem Mukhlis of the Iraqi National Liberal Movement (INL) stressed the importance of national identity among all Iraqis, saying that the one issue that would unite all those opposed to Saddam Hussein "... is to feel we are Iraqis before we are Kurds or Shia's or Sunnis, Arabs or Turkomans. We have to get feeling of belonging to Iraq."

No one is benefiting from the status quo in Iraq except for Saddam Hussein, he argued, and "change is coming and change has to come, whether it is from within or without. It has to come and we have to accept it," said Mukhlis.

Many of the conference participants questioned whether the United States planned to use military force in order to put an end to Saddam Hussein's regime.

Professor Galbraith of the National War College had no doubt as to U.S. intentions. Referring to an "impending campaign" against Saddam, he said there was currently a "historic moment of opportunity" for the Kurds in northern Iraq.

"Why do I say impending? Because the President of the United States has stated publicly and repeatedly that he intends to remove Saddam Hussein, and I take him at his word. Not without a few doubts ... but nonetheless I think he really does mean it," said Galbraith.

David Mack of the Middle East Institute was slightly more cautious, repeating the Bush Administration's policy that while President Bush certainly favors a regime change, "he has no plan on his desk for that. They are still seeking ways to do it." For that reason, said Mack, the United States continues to seek opinions from Iraqis it can reach out to in exile and within the Kurdish safehaven.

Despite the coolness expressed by European and Arab governments to military action, "there is one group that will almost certainly welcome such a campaign, and that is the Iraqi people themselves," argued Galbraith, stating that the majority of the Iraqi population is made up of ethnic and religious communities "that have been brutally repressed by Saddam Hussein."

Hoshyar Zebari of the KDP confirmed that Kurds "would very much like to see a new government," even if the fall of Saddam Hussein would eventually lead to the weakening of Kurdish autonomy in northern Iraq.

"Some people would say, why should you give up what you have? You've achieved a great many things, for what? Definitely we are willing to give up what we have for a better future, for a better influence, for a more prosperous future for our people," said Zebari. "But definitely we will not give it up without charge, or for free," he warned, "unless we are reassured of a secure future and supported."

Kurdish skepticism and fear of the central government in Baghdad have been heightened by the painful memory of Saddam Hussein's brutal use of poison gas in Anfal and Halabja in 1988. Galbraith argued that at least 100,000 and possibly as many as 200,000 people were killed not only from the use of gas against the civilian population, but also from forced deportations and systematic executions.

"This grim history explains why all Kurds are eager to see Saddam Hussein gone," Galbraith said. "It also explains why, as prudent leaders, [Kurdish political figures] Jalal Talabani and Marsood Barzani are unlikely to jeopardize the de facto fortress that exists between the Kurdish entities and the rest of Iraq" unless the Kurds are certain that their population will be protected and Saddam would not merely be replaced by another Arab dictator.

Speaking as a Sunni Arab from Saddam's home town of Tikrit, the INL's Hatem Mukhlis argued that Kurds should remember the regime also targeted other communities, including Sunni Arabs.

"We need to always remind ourselves that Saddam never discriminated. His atrocities have touched every Iraqi equally. It didn't matter where they came from or where they lived or what they believed in," said Mukhlis.

Many of the day's speakers also asserted their determination that Saddam Hussein should not be replaced by another dictatorial regime. Mohammad Sabir of the PUK recognized that Kurdish rights could not be guaranteed without due regard to the need of other groups, such as the Shi'a community "to feel safe and secure."

"The unity of Iraq can only be made viable if, and only if, it is based on a voluntary union of its people. The centralized dictatorial Iraq is a menace, a failure that cannot be allowed to resurrect," said Sabir.

Mudhwar Shawkat of the Iraqi National Movement agreed, saying that the method of "force and coercion" used against dissenting communities to preserve a united Iraq had failed. "Iraq and all Iraqis have suffered enough," he said, and a future government that only paid lip service to democracy would not suffice.

"In the future we do not only need a government that will abide by a democratic constitution, but we are also in dire need of a government that can implement democratic reforms in a way that addresses these serious imbalances which plague the party politic," said Shawkat.

The American University conference closed after the day-long discussion, having heard opinions from a wide variety of Iraqis and outside observers on how a post-Saddam Iraq could be structured to guarantee the rights of minority communities. Hatem Mukhlis of the INL reminded the audience of their fellow citizens inside Iraq who were not capable of expressing their views. "Those Iraqis have the moral right," he said. "We have to take them into consideration and what they feel about this whole situation."

"It is absolutely exhilarating that we are here, discussing the future of Iraq, with the many options, many wonderful scenarios. But let us not forget that all of these are moot as long as Saddam is enjoying the powers and the riches of Iraq," said Mukhlis.

(The Washington File is a product of the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Return to Public File Main Page

Return to Public Table of Contents