Michael Rubin Interview with Kurdish daily Rojname
- KurdishMedia.com
- 23/12/2008 00:00:00
Rojname: as an intellectual, what is your view on the future relations of Kurds with the Obama administration? Do Democrats find it important to map a special policy with Kurds?
There won’t be any significant change between Bush’s treatment of the Kurds and Obama’s treatment of the Kurds. A few points:
(1) Election campaigns are about enunciating differences but after the election, the distinctions between the two parties on most subjects blur. The greatest difference between the two parties is on economic and tax policy; foreign policy tends to be consistent, whether the President is Democrat or Republican.
(2) Some Kurds feel that an Obama administration would be more pro-Kurdish because of Vice President-elect Joe Biden’s ethnic federalist arguments. Perhaps, perhaps not. Remember, during the election campaign he deleted all of his federalist plans from his website and was willing to sacrifice them for his ambition. Hilary Clinton will balance Turkish and Kurdish interests. The Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, who will not have an official position but whom Senator Barack Obama listens to on a personal level, wrote a history of Iraq from an Arab nationalist perspective. He failed to even mention the Anfal.
(3) Lastly, while the Kurds expect change and a more pro-Kurdish position, the Turks also cheered Obama’s victory. And for a lot of reasons that have more to do with Europe, Afghanistan, and NATO, the White House will always choose Ankara over Arbil when it comes to U.S. interests, regardless of who is president.
Rojname: When US needed Kurds, they attached no importance to Sunnis, but now, the situation is opposite. The Kurds fear the repeat of the 1975 scenario. To pass this fear, what should Kurds do to appease the US?
This is an excellent question and, I am afraid that in the long term, the Kurds are hurting themselves in Washington. In the Middle East, historical memory reaches back decades if not centuries. In the United States, officials have difficulty remembering what happened four years ago. It is just a fundamental difference in our political cultures. So my advice:
(1) Assume that no official in Washington knows Kurdish history and so 1975 is without meaning to most people in Washington.
(2) The Kurds should stop playing U.S. politics. The question for Kurds should never be whether Democrats or Republicans are better on Kurdish issues, but rather how can Kurds get both Democrats and Republicans to be sympathetic to Kurdish issues? They need friends in both parties. In this, the Kurds have made some mistakes. Back in 2004, for example, the KDP and PUK hired Peter Galbraith to be their advocate. He is a good and dedicated advocate for Kurdish causes. But, because he kept saying nasty things about Republicans, then it was assumed that Barzani and Talabani were paying him to say bad things about the Republicans and the Kurds lost many Republican friends. If the Kurds hire any advocate, they should ensure he speaks only about the Kurds and does not play politics.
(3) More recently, the Kurds formed a group “Kurds for Obama.” It had no demonstrable affect on the election. Indeed, they lost badly when they campaigned for a Democratic senator in Georgia. Rather than have “Kurds for Obama,” they should have “Kurds for Kurdistan.” Now, more Republicans see Kurds as their enemy, for example the Republican in Georgia whom “Kurds for Obama” campaigned against. Perhaps the Kurdish leadership does not care, but the United States is not Kurdistan. Parties go up and down and are not frozen in time. If the Kurdish community in the United States is not careful, they could find themselves in two or four years with a Republican Congress and in four or eight years with a Republican President.
Rojname: To what level is the US concerned about corruption in Iraq and Kurdistan Region? Are there plans to combat this challenge?
Everyone notices the corruption and the abuse of Kurdish journalists has made headlines in American newspapers. Barzani and Talabani can no longer hide it. Even Qubad Talabani acknowledges it to people whom he considers friends; many of these people say they are tired of his excuses. The perception that the Kurdish leadership is more interested in money than democracy is now widely recognized in the Pentagon and the State Department. This perception may harm Kurdish interests when it comes to U.S. decision making about the balance between Arabs and Kurds or disputes in Diyala, Kirkuk, and Mosul.
Rojname: The US and Turkey are friends. Turkey is concerned about the unification of Kirkuk with the [KRG] region, and Kurds will not give up Kirkuk. US, Turkey, Kurds and Kirkuk are interconnected, and this problem is challenging. What is your view on this?
I am in favor of following the constitutional process on this which was arrived at through careful negotiation. My dispute with the Kurdistan Regional Government involves corruption and the PKK, not Kirkuk.
Rojname: If the US is dissatisfied with the performance of the current parties in power, both in Baghdad and Erbil, will it support alternatives?
Ultimately, Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan need to speak out for this, much as Kurds are doing in London. They have a difficult challenge. The Kurdish government in Washington spends a lot of money to lobby for its image. Kurdish Diaspora organizations in Washington are out-of-touch with Kurdistan and conflate criticism of the Kurdistan Regional Government with criticism of Kurdish aspirations. When was the last time you saw Kurdish figures in Washington visit Chamchamal as opposed to Sari-Rash or Qala Chwalan? These Kurdish Diaspora leaders confuse criticism of corruption with criticism of Kurdistan. But much needs to be done inside Kurdistan. Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan have to organize and not simply betray their dreams for some money to buy a Mercedes or a Dollarawa house. The first opportunity for real change will come when the PUK changes leadership—or dissolves—after Mam Jalal’s death. Talabani’s family will not stay in Kurdistan; they will live in London or Washington or Geneva with the money they have taken from Kurdistan and invested through proxies in China and elsewhere. Masud Barzani will try to consolidate control, but will have difficulty because corruption has made him less popular than he believes, and his sons even less so. So there will be opportunity for someone to pick up the pieces of leadership. There are many good Kurds out there, many honorable peshmerga, intellectuals, engineers, and doctors.
Rojname: How do see the future of Iraq? Do you think Iraq will become an institutional state or a state sinking under corruption and chaos?
My biggest fear is that Iraq will be a state which neighboring states like Iran and Saudi Arabia seek to interfere in, keeping Iraq from ever developing. In the 1960s and 1970s, Iraqis—both Arabs and Kurds—could take vacations to neighboring states. When they drove Iraq to Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, it was as if they left a developed country and entered a country decades behind. Now, it is the reverse. Meanwhile, the corruption in Iraqi Kurdistan and in the rest of Iraq is so bad that the educated young generation wants to build up their lives in Europe, Beirut, or Dubai rather than at home. That should be depressing for any patriotic Iraqi or Kurd.
The interview was conducted by Ms Diye Fazil of Rojname. Visit Rojname page via www.sbeiy.com
- KurdishMedia.com
- 23/12/2008 00:00:00