Kurdistan - Paradise

September 3rd, 2007
By Michael van der Galien

Print Print

Thomas Friedman writes for the New York Times:

Iraq today is a land of contrasts — mostly black and blacker. Traveling around the central Baghdad area the past few days, I saw little that really gave me hope that the different Iraqi sects can forge a social contract to live together. The only sliver of optimism I find here is in the one region where Iraqis don’t live together: Kurdistan.

After that he goes on to describe the situation in Kurdistan, he does so in quite a brilliant manner:

Imagine for a moment if one outcome of the U.S. invasion of Iraq had been the creation of an American University of Iraq. Imagine if we had triggered a flood of new investment into Iraq that had gone into new hotels, a big new convention center, office buildings, Internet cafes, two new international airports and Iraqi malls. Imagine if we had paved the way for an explosion of newspapers, even a local Human Rights Watch chapter, and new schools. Imagine if we had created an island of decency in Iraq, with public parks, where women could walk unveiled and not a single American soldier was ever killed — where Americans in fact were popular — and where Islam was practiced in its most tolerant and open manner. Imagine …

Well, stop imagining. It’s all happening in Kurdistan, the northern Iraqi region, home to four million Kurds. I saw all of the above in Kurdistan’s two biggest towns, Erbil and Sulaimaniya. The Bush team just never told anybody.

According to Friedman, Kurdistan is not fully Democratic yet, but it most certainly on the right path. For now, there is too much corruption and the politics in the region are too much like those in the “Sopranos” than in “West Wing,” but “it is democratizing, gradually nurturing the civil society and middle class needed for a real democracy.” In other words, Kurdistan might become what the Bush administration hoped Iraq would be like.

More, not only is Kurdistan a big success, it is also a success “in the best way: we created the opening and the Kurds did the rest.”

It seems that the Kurds living in Northern Iraq never truly tried to develop their region because they were afraid of Saddam Hussein. Once Saddam was removed from power, however, Kurds understood that they were safe and they started to invest bigtime in businesses, cards, hotels, etc. Even those with little to no money decided that the time for financial action had come.

Friedman wonders why it is that the Bush administration has kept the success of Kurdistan a secret, or at least why it does not proclaim Kurdistan’s success from the roof of the White House. He gives the answer to these questions as well: “the Bush team is afraid the Kurds will break away.”

Quite an understandable fear but, according to Friedman, unfounded nonetheless. According to the NYT columnist, “the Kurds have no interest in splitting from Iraq now. Iraq’s borders protect them from Turkey, Iran and Syria.”

Although Friedman might be right about this - I have never visited Kurdistan, nor do I have any contact with Kurds living in Northern Iraq - I also understand why Bush et al are not so sure about this as Friedman is. The PKK has found a safe haven in Iraq, and it is no secret that the goal of the PKK is to create an independent Kurdish state. More, Barzani - the leader of the Kurds - has basically said in the recent past that the Kurds might indeed pursue independence and that they are ready for it. Whether he said this things just to satisfy the PKK or whether he actually believes in it, the result is that Turkey and America are both a bit suspicious, to say the least.

All of this does not mean, however, that the US cannot exploit Kurdistan’s success. The lives of Kurds have greatly improved since the US went to war against Iraq; Kurdistan has progressed tremendously; this is a major accomplishment and, although many things have gone wrong in this war, this part of the war has gone mostly right.

There is, however, one ‘but’ not mentioned by Friedman: the PKK might jeopardize the peace and progress made in Kurdistan. Because of the PKK, Turkey and Iran are more than willing to invade Kurdistan, or at least to bomb some villages. In the end, Kurdistan can only truly prosper when the PKK decides to lay down its arms.




This entry was posted on Monday, September 3rd, 2007 at 11:06 am and is filed under As Yet Unassigned. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

 
close Reblog this comment
blog comments powered by Disqus



By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.