The world knows this reality better than us Kurds, yet still advises us to achieve our rights on the basis of the constitution. But it is unclear who the guarantor of the constitution is and how the small partner of the new Iraq can reclaim its stolen rights from its big partner.
Kurdish rights have been enshrined on paper since the day Iraq was built. “The Kurds and Arabs are the main partners of the homeland of Iraq” was a sentence repeated during colonial times, then in temporary constitutions and in the law on autonomy, and subsequently in the permanent federal constitution.
The Arabs have not though lived up to the promises to Kurds they enshrined on paper, however. It’s said that the Shiite Arabs are against the Kurdistan Region because the constitution was written when they held no power and they therefore want to make up for that. But this is a big lie.
The truth is that the Shite and Sunni Arabs knew that what was written on paper was only to deceive. What matters is what happens in practice.
Federalism was the best solution to the Kurdish question at this stage in the south because it turned out that we are not self-sufficient in any area and cannot stand on our feet yet, that is if the constitution were to be implemented.
But the bitter reality is that the Iraqi Arabs, whether Shiites or Sunnis, Islamic or secular, cannot tolerate the idea of sharing the country with another nation.
The secular and socialist Baath party did more than the current ruling Shiites in Iraq to openly recognize the rights of Kurdistan on paper in the 1960s and 1970s, yet gassed and subjected the Kurds to Anfal.
It is therefore no surprise to hear that Shiite Arab leader Haider al-Abadi is impressed by the Arab leadership of Saddam Hussein, according to foreign journalists privately meeting Abadi.
Water streams differ in the direction they take, but originate from the same source. Arabs don’t believe in sharing an Arab homeland with non-Arabs.
The perception among Arab nations of minorities is that colonial powers use these minorities to break and belittle Arab and Islamic honour. They therefore think that they shouldn’t be soft with minorities.
They exemplify this kind of perception with Kurds, arguing that the British, Soviets, Americans, and Israelis have each used Kurds against Arabs at different times. Today, they think the Kurds are building another Israel and chauvinists are buying into this theory.
There is an argument that the influence exerted by Turkey and Iran on Baghdad is preventing the Kurds from becoming real partners in Iraq and is a hindrance to the implementation of federalism in the country.
There is probably some kind of truth to this argument. Unlike Turkey, Iran is fearful of federalism and sees it as a tool to undermine and divide the country.
Whereas AKP-run Turkey, which dreams of returning to Ottoman days, is aware that federalism also existed during the Ottoman Empire and is a broader and more open system than others in the world. In the 1970s and 1980s, Ankara exerted pressure to prevent Baghdad from reaching an agreement with south Kurdistan movements. But in recent years, Ankara has been more receptive than Tehran to the federal system in the Kurdistan Region and was also softer with Erbil.
If ruling Shiite Arab leaders of Baghdad, however, are delaying implementation of the constitution and enforcement of the federal system under the excuse of pressure from neighboring countries, then they are lying and are saying this in order to hide their own real thinking.
Unfortunately, the Kurdistan Region doesn’t have many choices and should therefore play it cool with its oppressive partner in the so-called federal Iraq until a later time when a suitable opportunity arises.
That being said, Kurds should not sit idle. We all know what we should do, but the problem is that we keep speaking and do nothing.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.
