HOME | north-of-africa.com

WASHINGTON, DC - While the Kurds continue to reaffirm their commitment to ensuring victory in Iraq, and to assure their American friends and neighbors that they will not break away from Iraq, they cannot be so sure that Iraq won’t break away from them. Would you blame them for going their own way?

Optimism is a force multiplier, or so they say. On 15 December, 2005, most following or involved in rebuilding Iraq were optimistic, if not ecstatic. In unprecedented fashion, millions of Iraqis, from all walks of life braved the threats from terrorists and voted to determine their destiny. However, for many of us who woke up optimistic on 16 December, reality is beginning to settle and we are starting to question our optimism.

Despite the efforts of the Kurdish leadership, several months after the elections, we still have no government, and sectarian violence continues. Iraq is polarizing, and has been for many decades. The mere fact that 87 percent of the voters in December voted along ethnic or sectarian lines highlights a new reality: Iraq today stands divided; divided among communities who find it difficult to reach beyond their ethnic or sectarian boundaries to come up with a national strategy that deals with the challenges that lay ahead. This division is to some the doomsday scenario; the balkanization of Iraq.

Ethnic and sectarian tensions have plagued Iraq since its founding. While nostalgic Iraqis from a bygone era will talk about the good old days, few Shiite Iraqis (Diaspora excluded) may talk of such a peaceful co-existence, very few Kurds, if any, will. Given the lack of a political order, and a trusted security apparatus, Arabs in Iraq are increasingly defining themselves as Shiite or Sunnis. They feel that it will be their sectarian affiliation that will protect them, not the State of Iraq. This polarization is the result of the failure of Iraq, since its inception, to rule justly; a failure culminating with Saddam Hussein. No one has done more harm to Iraq’s unity and identity than Saddam. This will be the legacy he leaves behind. While there may be many to blame for today’s polarization, one cannot blame the Kurds.

Kurdish leaders have contributed more to the cause of a united Iraq than any other. During the many deliberations over the past three years, it has been the Kurdish leadership consistently brokering agreements between the perpetually bickering Sunnis and Shiites. Kurds have led the effort to ensure that all communities remain fully engaged in the political process by seeking to enshrine the doctrine of “consensus and compromise” while upholding the protection of citizens’ civil liberties. The Kurds, the so-called “separatists” ironically, are those fighting hardest to save Iraq. Will we succeed in creating trust between Iraq’s community leaders? Can the Kurds continue to engage Sunnis and Shiites before the increasing sectarian violence escalates into civil war?

Given the obstacles forming a national unity government, and the spate of sectarian violence following the terrorist attack against the Askari mosque in Samarra, optimism is hard to muster. But all may not be lost. Recognizing that for western policy makers, and Iraqi intellectuals, this reality of failing to create an ethnic-less or sectarian-less Iraq is a bitter pill to swallow; acknowledging, and more importantly, navigating this reality, could result in the only possible way that “Victory in Iraq” could be attained. Enshrining the federal solution outlined in Iraq’s permanent constitution, which allows for the creation of strong regions, loosely held together by a central government with clearly defined competencies; and coming up with tangible mechanisms for equitably distribution of the country’s oil wealth, could be the only way of addressing the insecurities of Iraq’s three main communities while ensuring Iraq remain a unified country.

Even Sunni Arabs, long time opponents of federalism, are starting to see its merits, as they understand that it could be their only protection against the imposition of policies by a Shiite-led central government. Division in Iraq however may not necessarily come as a result of a political compromise, rather through the escalation of sectarian violence, leading to a full scale civil war. In the case of a civil war; where communities fight one and-other and the state institutions break down, we can expect the end of Iraq as we know it. In such a scenario, the Kurdish leadership must protect the hard earned gains we have achieved over the past 15 years.

We must defend our citizens from domestic and international threats. We must continue to improve on our governance and work hard to garner the support of our population. We must prevent Kirkuk from falling into chaos, and into the hands of anti-democratic forces. But the biggest challenge would be to do all this while keeping the support of the United States, and alleviating the fears and concerns of our neighbors. Such a scenario, while at this stage unlikely, could be possible if we fail to bring about a government of national unity - a true national unity, not a phony unity that ignores the reality of Iraq’s ethnic and sectarian make-up, or if we have another major attack on a revered holy site. While we must continue to pursue our current path to build a federal democracy in Iraq, it would be unwise not to prepare for every eventuality; for a civil war will undoubtedly lead to the break-up of the country.

Therefore we must begin to break the taboo and address the possibility of Kurdish independence. While we continue to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring victory in Iraq, and assure our American friends, and our brothers in our neighborhood that we will not break away from Iraq, we cannot be so sure that Iraq won’t break away from us. If that were to happen, given all that we have done to try to keep the country unified, no one should blame us for going our own way.

Soma Digest - By Qubad Talabani
The writer is KRG representative in Washington, DC.