Kurds in the Punch Bowl

The UN has given its blessing to the U.S.-British plan for Iraq sovereignty. That's a good thing, but it has also riled Iraqi Kurds who are understandably sweating out what unconstrained majoritarianism might mean for them. The AP reports:

Kurdish fears of Shiite domination rose after the Americans and British turned down their request to have a reference to the interim constitution ? which enshrines Kurdish federalism ? included in the U.N. resolution approved Tuesday.

The country's most prominent Shiite leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, warned he would not accept mention of the interim charter in the resolution. Shiites oppose parts of the charter that give Kurds a veto over a permanent constitution due to be drawn up next year.

The UN's Kofi Annan has sought to soothe Kurds by noting that the resolution "does have language that refers to a united federal democratic Iraq."

We'll see if that's enough. Despite comprising around 60 percent of Iraq's population, Shiites were oppressed under Saddam Hussein's Sunni regime. Kurds account for about 15 percent of Iraq's citizens.

Comments

[Joe L.]

The Kurds are simply odd man out, no matter what… in a democracy. They represent a minority of voters in Iraq. The same applies to the Sunnis as well.

[joe]

unrestrained majoritarianism->liberal democracy->no more terrorism

Have I got that right, hawks? Is that what this war is to accomplish?

[Jason Ligon]

joe:

The constitution and structure of the government are what restrain majoritarianism. Iraq doesn’t have either yet. Any majority is necessarily unrestrained until there is a system of checks and rights in place.

JoeL is right, they are a minority, but he doesn’t go far enough. Even in the absence of a democracy, they are holders of less physical force, and are therefore still subject to the will of those able to inflict more harm. What we are trying to do is provide a mechanism of dispute resolution and law creation that Shia, Sunni, and Kurds will all find preferable to war.

[Gadfly]

“Well Gadfly the No-Fly autonomy was unsustainable…”

Wrong. We’ve kept the lid on North Korea for 50 years. Still waiting for the implosion but it’ll happen without a war.

“Have the Kurds been “screwed” BTW?”

After GWI the Kurds (as well as the Shia) revolted at our urging. We watched with binoculars while they were slaughtered. Now we tell them that they’ll have a significant seat at the table in their new government but then reneg when the interim constitution gets written up. I’d say that’s being screwed.

The decision to invade when we had Iraq well in hand was so stupid it’s hard to describe and cannot be undone. The various factions, as well as their neighbors, are just waiting for us to tire of this folly (we’re already wheezing) and will then implement their various agendas.

We could have just as easily waited Saddam out with no-fly zones and other sanctions and accomplished more than we will eventually get out of the invasion.

Of course, we did get to kick another third world country’s ass. That makes it all better.

[Joe L.]

Gadfly,
I think you are seriously wrong here. The No-Fly zone is fundamentally different logistically and legally from the Korean situation. We couldn’t just keep protecting the Kurds in No. Iraq, it was tdy’ing us and the Brit’s to death. PLUS, the no-fly’s came from the cease-fire and sanctions regime, which was crumbling.

“We could have just as easily waited Saddam out with no-fly zones and other sanctions and accomplished more than we will eventually get out of the invasion.” This might be the standard line of antiwar.com/ANSWER/Win Without War but that don’t make it any less wrong. The sanctions regime was falling apart. Second we weren’t going to outwait Saddam and his regime was solid and its successors in place, Uday and Qusai. We faced another 10-20 years of this regime. And I don’t see us going home soon, sorry I don’t see us “wheezing” or if we are we’ll wheeze on until victory…and what would sanctions ahve produced? A federal-Democratic Iraq or a rebellion and civil war Iraq, wqith the Mullahs and Kurds scrapping over the bones? The end result probably an unstable, authoritarian regime. Nope Gadfly, you can tell yourself these fairey tales if you want, but don’t expect me or too many others to believe them.

[Ruthless]

Your title may have the truth reversed.
Kurds are the punch in the Iraq turd bowl.

[1MaNLan]

All depends on the “horse trading” that will take place behind the scenes. Kurds may have to settle for less, along with Sunni’s and the Shia. If they get all they ask for, the Kurds will have substantial control over the Karbala oil fields (at the expense of the Sunni’s), and near autonomy. This will create instability in Turkey and Iran, where large Kurdish minorities will clamor their own slice of the pie. The Turks are not going to allow increasing instability without some kind of military response, and the Iranians may not either. On the other hand, Sistani is not going to go along with Kurdish autonomy and again, this will lead to conflict. If left to their own devices, the people of the region, I am betting, will simply have too much to lose to turn themselves into another Lebanon and will make compromises. However, if the US tries to strongly influence the political process by way of their’ military “trump card” , they may just muck things up beyond repair.

[Gadfly]

The Kurds were getting along pretty well under the no-fly zone rules between the two GW’s. They ran their patch pretty well autonomously of Saddam and have done a good job of controlling it since the invasion. We sold them out – again – and now it’s all up for grabs.

When will they ever learn? When the US military shows up in large numbers, the Kurds get screwed.

[Joe L.]

Well Gadfly the No-Fly autonomy was unsustainable…

What was the US to do, stay there FOREVER? The Kurds coud not/would not stay in limbo forever, either. They either had to integrate into Iraq or become Kurdistan. The latter option ISN’T an option so only integration can be the result.

Have the Kurds been “screwed” BTW? I have no doubts that the Shi’i and Sunni have legitimate fears that Kurdish “autonomy” was merely a precursor to Kurdish independence, and subsequent foreing intervention, by Turkey, Syria, and Iran.

Autonomy, differentiated from federal protection really must be viewed with suspicion by the other groups in Iraq. The Kurds are going to have to “earn” autonomy thru time rather have it granted early on.

Everyone has a lot to lose in this process, the bad result could well be foreign intervention(s) and civil war, possibly even partition of Iraq. So, let’s hope that everyone practices some caution and restraint.

[thoreau]

Are you trying to suggest that foreign intervention into the affairs of Iraqi Kurds and Arabs might be a bad thing? 🙂

[Joe L]

Yeah, Thoreau when the interveners are Syria, Iran, and Turkey… none of whom have a great track record of human rights, and all of whom might have an incentive to annex some oil-rich land.

[Gary Gunnels]

No matter what, the Kurds were never going to get all they wanted; indeed, given their weak position in these matters, they were always going to be the odd man out once an invasion occurred.

[Gadfly]

“and what would sanctions ahve produced? A federal-Democratic Iraq or a rebellion and civil war Iraq, wqith the Mullahs and Kurds scrapping over the bones”

And what will the invasion produce? You hope for the former, despite the lack of precedent, but the latter is more likely.