Wednesday, 22 August 2007
Aza Hasib
Aza Hasib
What is it about the "primitive activity of infrastructure improvements of Kurdistan" and the "new experience of self-rule of the Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan Region" that drives these three countries' desires to destabilize the region?
Turkish forces have bombarded Kurdistan Region border villages several times, and its military planes have been operating over the area for at least the past two months.
At the same time, the Islamic Republic of Iran has bombarded the border areas and its troops have been trying to cross the borders.
Syria has also had a hand in attacking the Kurdish region, with its distinctive method of sending suicide bombers and car bombs and backing the extremist religious armed groups. These were aimed at the region and other Kurdish-inhabited areas of Mosul province, the latest of which were those of Shangar. The initial investigation proved that the roots of the attack go back to the Syrian Information Agency.
Aside from the main subject of the article, I want to talk about a conversation that took place between me and a friend. My friend was asking why Syria wanted to attack Shangar and the Yazidis. I told him exactly what I believed. First, Shangar is the area nearest the Syrian border and therefore is the easiest area for them to send car bombs. Second, Shangar is the weakest place in the area in terms of security. Third, Yazidi Kurds live there and that makes it easier for the Syrian agencies to persuade and back the radical Islamic groups to massacre its people. Fourth, Shangar is part of the areas included in Article 140 of the Iraqi permanent Constitution, and it is easy to persuade Arabizationists and Baathist Arabs to participate in killing Kurds so that when the time to survey arrives, the number of Kurds would be lesser than what is needed for reattaching the area to Kurdistan. Fifth, if there is any plan to transport Kirkuk oil to the Ceyhan port in Turkey through those areas, and Kurdish Peshmergas and Kurdistan Region's guards are to defend transporters, it is better to render the area unsecured in order to reduce the possibility of such plans.
However, these are only guesses and analyses for a situation that now threatens the Yazidis with genocide.
Let's return to the main subject, which is the size and rate of the simultaneous military attacks on Kurdistan Region by Turkey, Iran, and Syria, and their acts against the region during the past 17 years, either alone or together.
This issue has surprised all political and media observers, and the much surprising point is why these three countries have become so concerned about a region such as Kurdistan to an extent that it has become the top priority of their acts in the region. There is nuclear Iran, which is challenging the most powerful country of the world; the NATO-member Turkey; and the information country of Syria. Why should they be so weak and afraid of the power of Kurds?
Why are Iran, who has centuries of emperorship and self-rule, Turkey, who has the history of the Ottoman Empire, Kemalism revolution, and the reign of military, and Syria, the citadel of Arabic nation resistance, owner of a history of military coup-de-tats, and the power of information, so concerned about the new experience of self-rule of the Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan Region?
Why are Turkey, the country of industry, companies, and ports, Iran, the country of oil, industry, ports, and agriculture, and Syria, the country of agriculture, fabric, ports, and tourism, so afraid of the primitive activity of infrastructure improvements of Kurdistan?
Why are the wide countries of Turkey, which, with its open borders, is the link between Europe and Asia and is a neighbor of the most influential countries of the Asian and European countries, Iran, which, with its open borders, is a neighbor to the Indian semi continent and the Middle East gate to Great China and East and southeast Asia, and Syria, with open borders to the Mediterranean and southeast Europe, so concerned about a small, close-bordered region?
What political, economic, and security beliefs do those countries have regarding a federal region? What do they tell their people and how do they justify their actions?
Isn't is better for those three countries to help the newborn government of this region and grant it security guarantees so that they make Kurdistan a secure region against Iraq and Gulf countries, thereby ensuring the safety of their own borders?
Isn't it better for Turkey to improve relations with Kurdistan and open a gate to the Gulf countries through the region? Isn't it better for Iran to improve its behavior with Kurdistan and make it a gate to reach Syria, Lebanon, and the Mediterranean? Isn't it also better for Syria to see Kurdistan as a gate for Iran, China, India, and the Persian Gulf?
Isn't it better for all those three countries to make the region a market for their products; make use of their labor power for their companies; make use of their colorful nature as a tourist attraction; make use of their abundant resources and send their investigation companies to compete with Europeans and Americans; and use the advantage of the neighborhood in terms of the economy by signing contracts with Kurdistan Regional Government?
Isn't it better for them in terms of science, culture, and media to use the political, scientific, and cultural openness of the region's government and open free media centers and universities?
Somebody told me: Yes, these are all true, but those countries don't want to make all of this happen with an independent Kurdish nation and its government, but rather with Kurds under their control as minorities!
This is the essence of the issue. They don't have security and military concerns, but each of them rather intends to occupy the region and use all of the resources for themselves. They are competing to occupy Kurdistan, and when one of them succeeds in doing that, the other two will become its neighboring enemies.
I said that all of these are true, but the true danger resides inside the region where the occupier cannot live peacefully for a single moment. It cannot implement any of the discussed plans and projects since the Kurds don't support them and a huge revolution takes place and Peshmergas and public opinion of other parts of Kurdistan participate in it and create a hell out of this region. Then, instead of collecting profits from the region, they can only collect the dead bodies of their troops and use their collapsed budget in an eternally lost war.
They must respond to the public opinion of the world, the European Union, and the U.S., who have long-term strategies in the region and abide to the resistance of their economic and political pressures.
Therefore, for now and for eternity, the existence of a stable, open, and developed region of Kurdistan is in the interests of Turkey, Iran, Syria, and the future Iraq. If politicians of those countries have reason, they should help and support the existence of Kurdistan Region.
At the same time, the Islamic Republic of Iran has bombarded the border areas and its troops have been trying to cross the borders.
Syria has also had a hand in attacking the Kurdish region, with its distinctive method of sending suicide bombers and car bombs and backing the extremist religious armed groups. These were aimed at the region and other Kurdish-inhabited areas of Mosul province, the latest of which were those of Shangar. The initial investigation proved that the roots of the attack go back to the Syrian Information Agency.
Aside from the main subject of the article, I want to talk about a conversation that took place between me and a friend. My friend was asking why Syria wanted to attack Shangar and the Yazidis. I told him exactly what I believed. First, Shangar is the area nearest the Syrian border and therefore is the easiest area for them to send car bombs. Second, Shangar is the weakest place in the area in terms of security. Third, Yazidi Kurds live there and that makes it easier for the Syrian agencies to persuade and back the radical Islamic groups to massacre its people. Fourth, Shangar is part of the areas included in Article 140 of the Iraqi permanent Constitution, and it is easy to persuade Arabizationists and Baathist Arabs to participate in killing Kurds so that when the time to survey arrives, the number of Kurds would be lesser than what is needed for reattaching the area to Kurdistan. Fifth, if there is any plan to transport Kirkuk oil to the Ceyhan port in Turkey through those areas, and Kurdish Peshmergas and Kurdistan Region's guards are to defend transporters, it is better to render the area unsecured in order to reduce the possibility of such plans.
However, these are only guesses and analyses for a situation that now threatens the Yazidis with genocide.
Let's return to the main subject, which is the size and rate of the simultaneous military attacks on Kurdistan Region by Turkey, Iran, and Syria, and their acts against the region during the past 17 years, either alone or together.
This issue has surprised all political and media observers, and the much surprising point is why these three countries have become so concerned about a region such as Kurdistan to an extent that it has become the top priority of their acts in the region. There is nuclear Iran, which is challenging the most powerful country of the world; the NATO-member Turkey; and the information country of Syria. Why should they be so weak and afraid of the power of Kurds?
Why are Iran, who has centuries of emperorship and self-rule, Turkey, who has the history of the Ottoman Empire, Kemalism revolution, and the reign of military, and Syria, the citadel of Arabic nation resistance, owner of a history of military coup-de-tats, and the power of information, so concerned about the new experience of self-rule of the Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan Region?
Why are Turkey, the country of industry, companies, and ports, Iran, the country of oil, industry, ports, and agriculture, and Syria, the country of agriculture, fabric, ports, and tourism, so afraid of the primitive activity of infrastructure improvements of Kurdistan?
Why are the wide countries of Turkey, which, with its open borders, is the link between Europe and Asia and is a neighbor of the most influential countries of the Asian and European countries, Iran, which, with its open borders, is a neighbor to the Indian semi continent and the Middle East gate to Great China and East and southeast Asia, and Syria, with open borders to the Mediterranean and southeast Europe, so concerned about a small, close-bordered region?
What political, economic, and security beliefs do those countries have regarding a federal region? What do they tell their people and how do they justify their actions?
Isn't is better for those three countries to help the newborn government of this region and grant it security guarantees so that they make Kurdistan a secure region against Iraq and Gulf countries, thereby ensuring the safety of their own borders?
Isn't it better for Turkey to improve relations with Kurdistan and open a gate to the Gulf countries through the region? Isn't it better for Iran to improve its behavior with Kurdistan and make it a gate to reach Syria, Lebanon, and the Mediterranean? Isn't it also better for Syria to see Kurdistan as a gate for Iran, China, India, and the Persian Gulf?
Isn't it better for all those three countries to make the region a market for their products; make use of their labor power for their companies; make use of their colorful nature as a tourist attraction; make use of their abundant resources and send their investigation companies to compete with Europeans and Americans; and use the advantage of the neighborhood in terms of the economy by signing contracts with Kurdistan Regional Government?
Isn't it better for them in terms of science, culture, and media to use the political, scientific, and cultural openness of the region's government and open free media centers and universities?
Somebody told me: Yes, these are all true, but those countries don't want to make all of this happen with an independent Kurdish nation and its government, but rather with Kurds under their control as minorities!
This is the essence of the issue. They don't have security and military concerns, but each of them rather intends to occupy the region and use all of the resources for themselves. They are competing to occupy Kurdistan, and when one of them succeeds in doing that, the other two will become its neighboring enemies.
I said that all of these are true, but the true danger resides inside the region where the occupier cannot live peacefully for a single moment. It cannot implement any of the discussed plans and projects since the Kurds don't support them and a huge revolution takes place and Peshmergas and public opinion of other parts of Kurdistan participate in it and create a hell out of this region. Then, instead of collecting profits from the region, they can only collect the dead bodies of their troops and use their collapsed budget in an eternally lost war.
They must respond to the public opinion of the world, the European Union, and the U.S., who have long-term strategies in the region and abide to the resistance of their economic and political pressures.
Therefore, for now and for eternity, the existence of a stable, open, and developed region of Kurdistan is in the interests of Turkey, Iran, Syria, and the future Iraq. If politicians of those countries have reason, they should help and support the existence of Kurdistan Region.
0 comments:
Post a Comment