Getting it Right in Kurdistan
by Camille
Pecastaing
06.25.2007
If and when the United States withdraws its troops from Iraq, it will have to
consider the future of Kurdistan. While a partition is officially anathema,
everyone knows the link between the Kurdish enclave in the north and the rest of
Iraq is tenuous. Baghdad’s only hope of preventing hard partition is to provide
the Kurds with a path toward the global economy. Kurds might be willing to live
with the Iraqi project if the strong federalism protecting their autonomy is
constitutionally upheld, and if—IF—the insurgency finally subsides, giving
Kurdish businesses access to Basra—Iraq’s only port. Other than that, Iraq has
nothing to offer the Kurds, who are naturally more likely to gravitate toward
Turkey or Iran. If everyone would smarten up, Kurdistan and Turkey could be the
best things to happen to each other.
Kurdistan came into its own in 1991, when the United Nations Security Council
passed Resolution 688 to stop Baghdad’s reprisals against Kurdish insurgents.
Enforced by the United States Air Force, UNSC 688 gave Iraqi Kurds 12 years of
de facto autonomy under an informal American protectorate. Then, the 2003
regime change in Iraq forced Kurdistan into the federal, democratic Iraq
Washington was trying to build in Mesopotamia. Kurds paid lip service to the
American agenda, and a long-time Kurdish leader assumed the Iraqi presidency.
But all the while, they have been developing regional institutions and
infrastructures at a frantic pace, a process that culminated in a 2006 transfer
of power to a unified Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) in Erbil. The Kurdistan
they envision is economically market-based, bolstered by a democratic polity,
and closely allied to the United States. It is also an independent state.
Those intentions should be clear to anyone looking at Kurdish nation-building
efforts. The realm of the Kurds (spread across Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran) is
partitioned by mountain ranges, and each valley has nurtured almost its own
people, speakers of dialects that blend a folkish Kurdish language with the
lingua franca of the closest empire. The genetics mirror the linguistics. In the
West, Kurds could pass for Turks but are not really that and, in the East they
could pass for Persians but are not really that either. Kurds are not Arab, and
the Kurds of Iraq are probably the least integrated in their host country. The
chasm between Kurds and Arabs is widening, as fewer and fewer Kurds are
proficient in the language of Baghdad. Kurdish academia is devising an
all-English curriculum from primary to tertiary education (to prevent Kurdish
children from learning Arabic), and the Kurdish script is in the process of
shifting to the Roman alphabet. Moreover, part and parcel of Kurdish identity is
the Kurdish martyrdom of the Anfal campaign: the genocide endured in the 1980s
at the hands of Arabs. Asking Kurdistan to be part of Iraq is like asking Israel
to be a Polish province. For now, the Kurds will stick with Iraq as long as this
is what the United States wants and as long as America provides security. In the
long-term, all bets are off.
While no one is more vocally against Kurdish independence than Ankara, Turkey
is potentially the most promising partner for an independent Kurdistan. Unlike
Iran, Turkey is not a pariah state, but rather a NATO member and an economic
partner of the European Union. Turkey also qualifies as an emerging economy, and
while it does not have oil, Kurdistan does and may have even more of it when a
promised referendum over the annexation of oil-rich Kirkuk to the Kurdish Region
is held. And, Turkish businessmen are already dominant among the handful of
foreign investors doing business in Kurdistan.
Ankara reads the shifting winds of Kurdish nationalism with apprehension. Its
concern may be justified, but its response, inspired by a prickly and
reactionary nationalism, is inappropriate. The current troop buildup at the
border of Iraqi Kurdistan is not the way of the 21st century, and
crushing the nationalist aspirations of Iraqi Kurds will only exacerbate ethnic
tensions within Turkey itself. What Ankara may never understand is that an
independent Kurdistan would relieve, rather than increase, Kurdish nationalist
pressure in Turkey. Kurds seeking a deep cultural experience would only have to
cross the border and withdraw to Erbil or Sulaimani. Inversely, claustrophobic
Kurds longing for a cosmopolitan metropolis (and there are plenty) could join
the cohort of their co-nationals already in Istanbul, Zurich or Munich,
confident that their identity was sovereign and represented in a corner of the
world’s map. As for the area of Turkish Kurdistan, it would be a halfway house,
a mixed human buffer between Turks and free Kurds.
The necessity of a human buffer is a lost lesson of the nationalist age.
Patriotism inspires seizing the biggest possible piece of the pie, one that
encompasses the entire nation and leaves no one out. But a smaller state
surrounded by large populations of co-nationals is better shielded from
immigration and more ethnically stable. By definition, a larger state would be
more mixed and porous. In its current incarnation, Iraqi Kurdistan already has
to accommodate small historical minorities of Turkmens and Assyrians. Reversing
Saddam’s Arabization program and expatriating Sunni Arabs from Kirkuk—in
anticipation of the referendum scheduled for December 2007—has been a tall order
for the KRG. Annexing the mixed areas of Mosul, a large Ottoman city and
historical home of an urban Kurdish community, would mean absorbing many Arabs
and would be as detrimental to the cause of Kurdish nationalism as the Six-Day
War was to Zionism. An expansion of Kurdistan beyond the borders of Iraq into
Turkey or Syria is an imaginary threat.
Iraqi Kurds have all the reasons in the world to be impatient with Turkey,
and one understands why the KRG would look the other way when Congra-Gel
fighters—ex–Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) partisans—regroup in the Qandil
mountain area in northwest Iraq to mount operations against Turkey. The Kurdish
issue resonates across the region in a new way, as Kurdish militias, who often
fought one another in the past, are becoming less parochial. The two main
Kurdish factions in Iraq, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the
Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), have made a historic rapprochement (although
much remains to be done). And the new incarnation of the PKK, which
traditionally recruited Turkish Kurds, also attracts young fighters from Syria
where the Asad regime is now facing a Kurdish political awakening.
Ultimately, the realization of Kurdistan’s economic potential depends on
foreign investment. The region has untapped oil and gas reserves, effective
security, modern infrastructures, an investment-friendly legal
environment—allowing foreign ownership of corporations and real property—and a
secular outlook hospitable to foreigners. But all that potential is compromised
as long as Kurdish trade remains hostage to the whims of Iranian and Turkish
authorities. The local needs for electricity cannot be met by a few
hydroelectric dams, and Turkey and Iran refuse to trade electricity. The few
border crossings of Kurdistan are made up of an endless line of trucks, which
limits the amount of gasoline imported and creates acute shortages. The wait for
subsidized gasoline at gas stations takes hours, even days, and Kurds have to
turn to the ubiquitous black market that sells poor quality gasoline smuggled
over the mountains in cheap plastic containers. In the meantime, Baghdad (and
Ankara, and Tehran) are making sure that Kurdistan doesn’t develop the capacity
to refine the oil it produces, maintaining the regional dependency.
The emergence of a viable, independent and successful Kurdistan would benefit
Turkey. But Ankara may not understand that. Few countries have Turkey’s ability
to consistently shoot themselves in the foot. The anachronistic denial of the
Armenian genocide, the constitutional harassment of Justice and Development
Party (AKP) and Prime Minister Recep Erdogan (the only Turkish politician of any
value since Turgut Ozal), the lingering Cyprus fiasco, the botched accession
negotiations process with the EU; all testify to Turkey’s lack of political
vision and maturity, both of which Kurdistan will have to overcome.
Camille Pecastaing is an assistant professor in Middle East Studies at the
Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in
Washington, DC.
More National Interest online coverage of Turkey and
Kurdistan:
"Talking
Turkey", by Marisa Morrison
"Kurdistandoff",
by Henri Barkey
"Turkey-Kurdistan
Update", by Wolfango Piccoli