“What should we do after defeating ISIS?” was once again the main topic at the Socialist International meeting in Paris last March 11.
Held at the magnificent Luxembourg Palace under the auspices of the president of the French Senate, the congress gathered a long line of influential policymakers, researchers, ministers, ambassadors and even several giant corporations.
I was invited as a researcher from the Paris School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences and took the opportunity and attended the congress.
I will dedicate this article to issues closely related to the Kurdish question and its standing in the wider Middle East. The main parts of the speeches delivered at the meeting were, in a way or the other, relevant to our Kurdish condition in the region.
The speeches of the President of the Senate Gérard Larcher, the former Foreign Minister Hubert Vidrine, who is still relatively influential in French international policymaking, the former Defense Minister Jean-Pierre Chevènement who is constantly consulted by the French President François Hollande, all emphasized two issues in particular, which are significant for us Kurds.
The first issue is to evaluate the position of Western countries in general and Europe in particular in relation to the Middle East. Most speakers agreed that if Europe had the upper hand in the Middle East at the dawn of the 20th century through the treaties of Sykes-Picot, Versailles, Sèvres, Lausanne and many others, the dawn of the 21st century brings a new era for the Middle East, where Europe has little to offer besides being an almost paralyzed spectator, with no real influence over how the East is being redrawn.
As of now and here, Europe is not making realities on the ground; it only adapts to them.
Over the past two years I have written in both Kurdish and French about Europe’s increasing inability to produce a political approach towards the Middle East. without the deep contradictory policies it has so far managed to make.
Europe is disjointedly watching the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis, the Shiites and the Sunnis, Kurds and Arabs, Kurds and Turks, Kurds and ISIS, the totalitarian regimes and Islamist movements. It expects the conflicting partners to resolve the battle by themselves and only then address the reality on the ground afterwards.
That is what happened in Egypt where Field Marshall Abdel Fattah El-Sisi was greeted on the red carpet, though he had Egyptian blood on his hands, and as Europe chose to forget about its previous stance regarding human rights and democracy in the country.
Henceforth, I would argue that Kurds need to evaluate their view of what Europe can and cannot do and understand that France and Britain are no longer the two countries of the Sykes-Picot era. Not only are they incapable of redrawing the map of our region, but also they will recognize the new borders that we draw ourselves.
Not only should we ignore what some European consulates in Erbil may or may not think about our independence, we should even summon them and give them reprimands about their statements regarding our independence.
Our diplomats are wrong when they allow a consul -- who by the way is not even an ambassador but working for one -- to say “we are not supporting Kurdistan independence!”
It is in fact our diplomats and politicians’ sense of self-effacement that paves the way for such flawed statements, as the consul knows better than anyone, his country is far weaker than what is attributed and could not change the course of action in this region.
Having more than 33 consulates in Kurdistan and signing long-term contracts with giant companies like TOTAL and Lafarge, which have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Kurdistan -- and even the arrival of other companies – is not for the sake of benefitting the Kurdish people alone, but rather specific conditions have made them to operate in the Kurdistan region.
If we declare independence in the near future, Europe will deal with the existing reality on the ground after independence. In other words, their approval or disapproval has no impact on the game as a whole. They will deal with the winning side in the end.
What is preposterous is the second part of the speeches given by European policymakers at the congress, in which they emphasized the “sovereignty of Iraq!”
The fact that they only deal with the winning sides makes the rhetoric of “sovereignty of Iraq” or “sovereignty of Syria” only untruthful.
The speeches of the president of French Senate and ministers, the ambassadors and other actors about protecting “Iraq’s sovereignty” are as irrelevant as their rhetoric on human rights and democracy. They have not been very serious about democracy and human rights in this region in the past and they will hardly be more serious about the sovereignty of Iraq in the future.
Sadly, many of the Kurdish political elites have not grasped these changes and continue to live in the 20th century.
Adil Baxawan is Kurdish researcher and writer.
Held at the magnificent Luxembourg Palace under the auspices of the president of the French Senate, the congress gathered a long line of influential policymakers, researchers, ministers, ambassadors and even several giant corporations.
I was invited as a researcher from the Paris School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences and took the opportunity and attended the congress.
I will dedicate this article to issues closely related to the Kurdish question and its standing in the wider Middle East. The main parts of the speeches delivered at the meeting were, in a way or the other, relevant to our Kurdish condition in the region.
The speeches of the President of the Senate Gérard Larcher, the former Foreign Minister Hubert Vidrine, who is still relatively influential in French international policymaking, the former Defense Minister Jean-Pierre Chevènement who is constantly consulted by the French President François Hollande, all emphasized two issues in particular, which are significant for us Kurds.
The first issue is to evaluate the position of Western countries in general and Europe in particular in relation to the Middle East. Most speakers agreed that if Europe had the upper hand in the Middle East at the dawn of the 20th century through the treaties of Sykes-Picot, Versailles, Sèvres, Lausanne and many others, the dawn of the 21st century brings a new era for the Middle East, where Europe has little to offer besides being an almost paralyzed spectator, with no real influence over how the East is being redrawn.
As of now and here, Europe is not making realities on the ground; it only adapts to them.
Over the past two years I have written in both Kurdish and French about Europe’s increasing inability to produce a political approach towards the Middle East. without the deep contradictory policies it has so far managed to make.
Europe is disjointedly watching the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis, the Shiites and the Sunnis, Kurds and Arabs, Kurds and Turks, Kurds and ISIS, the totalitarian regimes and Islamist movements. It expects the conflicting partners to resolve the battle by themselves and only then address the reality on the ground afterwards.
That is what happened in Egypt where Field Marshall Abdel Fattah El-Sisi was greeted on the red carpet, though he had Egyptian blood on his hands, and as Europe chose to forget about its previous stance regarding human rights and democracy in the country.
Henceforth, I would argue that Kurds need to evaluate their view of what Europe can and cannot do and understand that France and Britain are no longer the two countries of the Sykes-Picot era. Not only are they incapable of redrawing the map of our region, but also they will recognize the new borders that we draw ourselves.
Not only should we ignore what some European consulates in Erbil may or may not think about our independence, we should even summon them and give them reprimands about their statements regarding our independence.
Our diplomats are wrong when they allow a consul -- who by the way is not even an ambassador but working for one -- to say “we are not supporting Kurdistan independence!”
It is in fact our diplomats and politicians’ sense of self-effacement that paves the way for such flawed statements, as the consul knows better than anyone, his country is far weaker than what is attributed and could not change the course of action in this region.
Having more than 33 consulates in Kurdistan and signing long-term contracts with giant companies like TOTAL and Lafarge, which have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Kurdistan -- and even the arrival of other companies – is not for the sake of benefitting the Kurdish people alone, but rather specific conditions have made them to operate in the Kurdistan region.
If we declare independence in the near future, Europe will deal with the existing reality on the ground after independence. In other words, their approval or disapproval has no impact on the game as a whole. They will deal with the winning side in the end.
What is preposterous is the second part of the speeches given by European policymakers at the congress, in which they emphasized the “sovereignty of Iraq!”
The fact that they only deal with the winning sides makes the rhetoric of “sovereignty of Iraq” or “sovereignty of Syria” only untruthful.
The speeches of the president of French Senate and ministers, the ambassadors and other actors about protecting “Iraq’s sovereignty” are as irrelevant as their rhetoric on human rights and democracy. They have not been very serious about democracy and human rights in this region in the past and they will hardly be more serious about the sovereignty of Iraq in the future.
Sadly, many of the Kurdish political elites have not grasped these changes and continue to live in the 20th century.
Adil Baxawan is Kurdish researcher and writer.
Comments
Rudaw moderates all comments submitted on our website. We welcome comments which are relevant to the article and encourage further discussion about the issues that matter to you. We also welcome constructive criticism about Rudaw.
To be approved for publication, however, your comments must meet our community guidelines.
We will not tolerate the following: profanity, threats, personal attacks, vulgarity, abuse (such as sexism, racism, homophobia or xenophobia), or commercial or personal promotion.
Comments that do not meet our guidelines will be rejected. Comments are not edited – they are either approved or rejected.
Post a comment