Darkness and Dust...
[Edit: more Riverben notes on Baghdad. This is more from Jan 15, 2004. riverbendblog.blogspot.com]
The last few days we've sort of been on an electricity schedule- for every four hours of no electricity, we get two hours of electricity. It's not much, but it's an improvement on one or two hours for every fourteen of darkness.
The last few minutes of electricity, we run around the house switching off lights, and appliances so that nothing is ruined. Sometimes the electricity doesn't go out immediately- it sort of dims, flashes back on and then stutters to a close. We're getting less generator time because there's still a gasoline problem and everyone is being really careful about the type of fuel they're using because the gas being sold on black market is sometimes mixed with kerosene.
A couple of days ago there was a lot of dust. Iraq is famous for its dust storms. Within a matter of hours, the horizon turns orange and everything looks slightly faded. The stucco houses take on a pale, peach hue and even the people look a little bit dull. It becomes difficult to breathe and it's almost catastrophic for people with allergies.
We've been dusting the last 24 hours because we found everything covered with a light film of dust. The kids spent the day drawing stick figures in the dust on the furniture which drove my mother just a little bit crazy- she rushed about the house wielding a rag and attacking everything with a smooth surface.
Everyone is feeling somewhat depressed these days. The weather isn't particularly good and the air feels charged with a combination of disappointment and impatience.
People are asking what the reaction is to the claims of the former American treasurer about Bush planning regime-change before September 11. Why is that such a shock to Americans? I haven't met a single Iraqi who thinks Iraq had ANYTHING to do with September 11. The claims were ridiculous and so blatantly contrived that it was embarrassing to see people actually believed them.
I sometimes wonder how the American people feel. After these last two wars with Afghanistan and Iraq, do the American people feel any safer? We watch the 'terror alerts' announced on television- politicians with somber faces and dramatic pauses alerting the population that at any minute, there might be an explosion or an attack. It's amusing because Iraq has been at the red level for the last 9 months. Why is it a drama when collective America experiences some strain for a couple of weeks during the holiday, but it's ok for Iraqis to experience five times the strain and apprehension for the next five years? Apparently, we are more tolerant- our blood pressures don't go up, our hearts don't palpitate and our kids can't be traumatized.
We heard about the American embassies being closed and secured all over the world… diplomats being withdrawn from countries or asked to remain locked indoors. Is that part of the 'war on terror'? Are Americans worldwide any safer? Do they sleep better at night now knowing that they are definitely safe from the fabled Iraqi WMD? We've forgotten what it feels like to feel completely safe.
- posted by river @ 5:45 AM
Thursday, January 08, 2004
Splitting Iraq...
Salam blogged about a subject close to every Iraqi's heart these last few days- the issue of federalism in Iraq and the Kurdish plan to embrace Kirkuk and parts of Mosul into the autonomous region in the north.
I can sum it up in two words: bad idea. First off, Kirkuk doesn't have a Kurdish majority as Talabani implies in every statement he makes. The Arabs and Turkomen in Kirkuk make up the majority. After the war and occupation, the KDP (led by Berazani) and PUK (led by Talabani) began paying party members to set up camp in Kirkuk and its outskirts to give the impression that there was a Kurdish majority in the oil-rich area. The weeks of May saw fighting between Kurdish Bayshmarga and Turkomen civilians because in some selected areas, the Turkomen were being attacked and forced to leave their homes and farms.
While Kurds and Turkomen generally get along in Iraq, there is some bitterness between them. Making Kirkuk a part of 'Kurdistan', as some are fond of calling it, would result in bloodshed and revolt. The Arabs in Kirkuk would refuse and the Turkomen wouldn't tolerate it. To understand some of the bitterness between Turkomen and Kurds, one only has to look back at what happened in 1959 in the northern part of Iraq. During that time, the Iraqi communist party had control and was backing Abdul Kareem Qassim, who was president back then.
Many die-hard communists decided that the best way to promote communism in the region would be to attack religious figures, nationalists and socialists- especially in Mosul, a conservative, dominantly Sunni Arab city and Kirkuk. For several weeks in 1959, there were massacres in both areas. During this time, communist Kurds from Suleimaniyah and Arbil were given orders to control the rebellious region. For days, there were assassinations of innocents… people were shot, dragged in the streets, maimed and hung on lampposts as an 'example' to those unwilling to support the communist revolution. Naturally, the people in Mosul and Kirkuk never forgot that- anyone over the age of 50 from that region will have at least six woeful stories to tell.
Mosul, on the other hand, is about 90% Sunni Arab, with around 5% Christian Arab and the rest a mix of Kurds, Yezidis, and some other Christian factions. Masslawis (people from Mosul) would *not* take kindly to a Kurdish rule.
Already, we've been hearing news of riots, demonstrations and assassinations in Kirkuk ever since Talabani suggested expanding the autonomous region. Turkomen and Arabs in Kirkuk are promising revolt and civil war if the Kurdish plan goes through.
How do I stand? I'm against splitting Iraq into areas that identify themselves ethnically or religiously. It won't work. It's almost every Iraqi's fear that Iraq will be torn into several pieces and the plan for an enlarged Kurdish region is just the first step to an independent Kurdish state or- Kurdistan- as they like to call it.
I believe that Kurds have the right to live equally as well as Arabs and people of other ethnicities- there is no argument to that. I have many Kurdish friends and we get along beautifully. I even have Kurdish relatives (through a cousin's marriage) and there's nothing nicer than an ethnically diverse family. In other words, I'm a champion of Kurdish rights.
Do I believe Kurds should have an independent Kurdish state? No. If every ethnic group in Iraq were to call for an independent state, we would have to split the country into more than 5 groups- the autonomous Kurdish region, the Sunni Arab region (including Mosul), the independent state of Kirkuk, the Republic of Baghdad, and the south would have to be split into 3 different states: one for Al-Hakim's supporters, one for Al-Sadr's supporters and another for Al-Sistani's supporters.
What is it that the Kurds can get in an independent 'Kurdistan' that they can't get in a democratic, united Iraq? Some would say that they had complete rights even before the war. There were tens of thousands of Kurds living in Baghdad. In fact, some of Baghdad's most affluent families prior to the occupation were Kurdish families with several sprawling palaces in Baghdad and other palaces in Suleimaniyah and Arbil. The irony is that some of these wealthy Kurds, much to the scorn of their less fortunate brothers, made their fortunes off of smuggling weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. Now, after the war, the arms smugglers are speaking the loudest against war atrocities (you learn this in occupation: the incredibly rich and powerful suddenly grow consciences like our garden grows weeds). Their kids drove the fastest cars, went to the best schools (there was no law banning Kurds from any school or college) and spent their summers in Switzerland, Germany and England.
Kurds also had a couple of exclusive clubs based in Baghdad, like Nadi Salah Al-Din, where they held weddings, parties and social events and while Arabs were welcome to attend as guests, they weren't allowed as members. On the other hand, Kurds were allowed as members into any club in Iraq- which is their right, as a minority. A definite advantage Kurds had over Arabs was the fact that they weren't drafted into the army.
To say that all Kurds want an independent Kurdistan would be a lie. Many Kurds are afraid of expanding the autonomous region because they know it will lead to a lot of bloodshed and strife. The Kurds who've always lived in Baghdad, as opposed to those living in the north, are afraid that this step by the ambitious Kurdish leaders will lead to a 'reaction' against Kurds outside of the autonomous zone. It's happening already- many people are bitter against Kurds because they feel that the splitting of Iraq will be at the hands of the Kurdish leaders.
Another thing Kurds seem to be worrying about of late is the fact that 'there is blood', as they say, between Berazani and Talabani. For the time being, they are presenting a united front for the CPA and Washington, pretending that they couldn't get along better if they were brothers. The reality is that before the war, they were constantly wrangling for power in the north with supporters of one attacking the supporters of the other, with innocent people, all the while, falling victim to the power struggle… and that was before oil was involved. Imagine what happens if they get Kirkuk.
We all lived together before- we can live together in the future. Iraqis are proud of their different ethnicities, but in the end, we all identify ourselves as "Iraqi". Every Iraqi's nightmare is to wake up one morning and find Iraq split into several parts based on ethnicity and religion. Salam said it best when he said, "There are no lines and none should exist…"
(By the way, Salam, did you hear Muwafaq Al-Rubai'i suggest that he wasn't satisfied with splitting Iraq into 3 parts? He's suggesting five… 3ud dai ka7ilheh, 3maha- sorry but that's just not translatable)
- posted by river @ 4:38 AM |
