Kurdishaspect.com - By Martin Zehr
The recent report of the Human Rights Watch “On Vulnerable Ground” has presented a unique effort to discredit the Kurdistan Regional Government, presented a political critique of the parties that govern southern Kurdistan and appears to have arbitrarily dismissed the Kurdish demand for implementation of Article 140 of the Iraqi Constitution. Its report is flawed by repetitions of allegations without substantiation, by citing incidents of terror that have no established perpetrators to date and by attempting to establish a vision of life in the Kurdish Autonomous Region as rife with ethnic, religious and cultural disputes.
The Kurdistan Regional Government has issued a statement in response. “The KRG is ready and willing to look into each and every allegation, and we are ready to work on these issues under the legal framework of both the Kurdistan Region and the Republic of Iraq, with the help of HRW and other reputable human rights organisations. The KRG will investigate each specific claim outlined in the report carefully and thoroughly. There may be instances of maltreatment and neglect; the KRG does not claim to be flawless.”
The joint efforts by both the PUK and the KDP governing in this most recent period after years of fratricidal conflict has provided cohesion to the government but is not even raised in the background information of the report. How can one evaluate the progress of the institutions and governing entities without providing clarity on how things have demonstratively changed in this regard? Recent emerging political opposition does indeed face an uphill battle for recognition, as do minority parties throughout the world.
The report calls for increasing the role of the central government in Baghdad in Kurdish affairs. It appears to have difficulty in the display of the Kurdish flags with its comment: “The Kurdish flag flutters in the wind from rooftops, while the flag of the central Iraqi state is nowhere to be seen.” This appears to imply that this is some sort of shameful act by the Kurdish people. Further, it equalizes Kurdish political engagement in Ninevah to Baathist attacks. “By default [my emphasis-MZ], Kurds dominated Nineveh’s provincial assembly after elections in 2005, giving them almost exclusive political as well as military dominance in this province in which they are a minority. These
Kurdish gains further alienated Sunni Arabs, turning Mosul into a hotbed of the Iraqi insurgency.”
It suggests the balkanization of the Kurdish Autonomous Region by the establishment of distinct self-governing of micro-regions for the Kurdish religious minorities, the Yazidis and Shabaks and attempts to define them as distinct ethnic groups. It appears to advocate an independent Christian micro-state, a separate Turkman state and sovereignty for every social and religious group in southern Kurdistan. The fact is that there remain other political options open to the KRG in regards to representation issues short of separation from the political entities that govern the Kurdish Autonomous Region.
There are more qualified experts to evaluate the various disputes between political, ethnic and religious groups’ interactions with Kurdish governmental officials and peshmerga. It does appear from its response that the KRG has demonstrated a desire to get to the bottom of particular incidents and actions of government bodies. It is worth reserving judgment until all the facts are in.
“On Vulnerable Ground” backhandedly complains in regards to Kurdish political demands of Article 140 for the Kirkuk Referendum by saying: “the KRG is adamantly [my emphasis- MZ] demanding implementation of a constitutionally-mandated referendum on the future of the disputed territories…” It noticeably omits implementation of Article 140 from its list of demands on the Iraqi government. This particular position undercuts the entire foundation of the existing Iraqi government and Constitution. If there was no intention to implement Article 140 when it was included then the agreement of Kurdish political parties becomes subject to review and re-consideration.
“On Vulnerable Ground” goes further with the attempt to deny the validity of the Kirkuk Referendum by stating: “What lies under these lands also makes them lucrative: more than half of Iraq’s large oil reserves are located in northern Iraq, much of them in this disputed area, and they contain the highest-quality oil in the country. The establishment of an enlarged autonomous Kurdistan with access to oil fields worries neighboring Turkey, Syria, and Iran, themselves home to large Kurdish populations with nationalist aspirations.” Suddenly the “nationalist aspirations” of Kurds in Kurdistan are simply a source of “worries for Turkey, Syria and Iran”. HRW knows more about the history of the region than to simply project that the Kurds only motivation for implementation of the Kirkuk Referendum is oil. It knows that the governments of Turkey, Syria and Iran are not simply the victim of “large Kurdish populations”.
The technique employed in “On Vulnerable Ground” is not to omit pertinent reports of investigation into specific incidents and electoral conduct, but to include it without summarizing its accuracy or pertinence. As a result people are left to their own conclusions regarding the reports. When taken in the context of a paper that appears on its surface to be significantly opposed to the current role of the KRG and Kurdish autonomy, the results of the investigations could easily be lost by readers.
“On Vulnerable Ground” presents possibly valid criticisms: “They have been victimized by Kurdish authorities’ heavy handed tactics, including arbitrary arrests and detentions, and intimidation, directed at anyone resistant to Kurdish expansionist plans.” But, along side this they suggest: “The Kurdish push into the area has created an opening for Sunni Arab extremists, who continue their campaign of killing minorities, especially religious minorities.” When “Sunni” responses to actions of the KRG are documented thusly, they fail to evaluate the political agendas of the various religious and political organizations, simply referring to “extremists”. The context is lost as a result and it appears as if the political issue of Kurdish autonomy is simply an unresolved political issue, instead of a standing Constitutionally-established empowerment.
The report takes no notice of the assassination and beheading of Nahla Hussein al-Shaly in December 2008 or the bomb attack that killed 57 people earlier that same month in Kirkuk against a local initiative to seek political unity. Attacks on Kurdish political and civil organizations and police in the region have their own dynamic and are not simply responses to actions of the KRG. "Attacks on Kurdish police, political activists, civil authorities and media are efforts of various political armed groups to seek to deny the Kurdish nation its right to self-determination." If the purpose of the HRW report is to examine the human rights issues in the region, inclusion of these assaults would have provided a clearer picture of the current political environment in the region.
The report repeatedly puts Kurds in the context of instigators whose actions have unleashed ex-Baathists and even, al-Quaeda. “The Kurdish leadership, with its formidable political and security presence in the area, believes it is poised to win such a referendum [a possibility provided for in the Iraqi Constitution- MZ], and is growing increasingly impatient given that there are no plans on the horizon for holding it. Sunni Arabs see Kurdish claims and initiatives as expansionist and illegitimate, and a threat to a unitary Iraq state. The struggle has also fueled the insurgency in the north, where groups like al Qaeda in Mesopotamia as well as Iraqi insurgents seek to exploit Sunni Arab anger and find recruits among the Arabs displaced by the reversal of arabization.”
“On Vulnerable Ground” does mention KRG financial support for various Yazidi and Chaldo-Assryian communities. But even there the report prefaces this with quotes implying regarding “co-optation” of opposition as the motivation. How can any government function if it fails to fund those within its jurisdiction and why is this an issue for concern outside of political opposition to the governing parties? As one person speaking to the authors of the report stated: “I wish the area remains disputed for 100 years because we will continue to receive support from both sides. Let them both nurture us.”
The pre-conceived political agenda of the authors undermines the effort to evaluate human rights abuses in southern Kurdistan. It punctuates every section and repeatedly seeks to characterize Kurdish national aspirations as the source of the assaults of other political forces in the region. HRW appears to present implementation of Article 140 as a provocation in itself. And it repeatedly challenges the proposition of Kurdish autonomous self-government which was agreed to by members of the Iraqi Constitution Drafting Committee and mandated through popular vote.
The KRG and Kurdish political parties have demonstrated restraint in the face of repeated delays of the Kirkuk Referendum by the government in Baghdad. Kurdish people have demonstrated a willingness to respect the authority of the KRG in resolving the political issues. Their resolve remains steadfast in achieving increased international recognition of their political and human rights.
A human rights report is a significant contribution in shaping public opinion in the world. Civil society and NGOs attach a great deal of importance to them, as do political parties in countries around the world. It is disheartening to find that “On Vulnerable Ground” breaks new ground in its willingness to undermine the national and political rights of Kurds. If its intention is to make Kurdish self-government vulnerable, it has unfairly and unjustly misrepresented the project of the Kurdish nation in the eyes of world public opinion.
