Kurdistan Regional Government [KRG] Prime Minister Barham Salih’s recent return from Baghdad and the KRG-Baghdad agreement over oil and the budget is yet another episode in the never-ending cycle of tense disagreements between Erbil and Baghdad.
Unfortunately, there is no end in sight for the ongoing disputes between the two cities. Every few months, we see an increase in tensions between Erbil and Baghdad, and an ensuing media war between ministers and other officials who eagerly exchange accusations.
These are usually followed by a meeting of the PMs and the standard statement along the lines of: “It was positive and all ongoing issues were resolved”. But in reality it is just a temporary agreement to settle an issue – one that lasts either a year (when the dispute involves the budget) or for the term of one of the governments – Baghdad or Erbil.
There are various reasons for this fluctuating relationship between the two cities, but these solutions are far from sustainable. What is required is a change in the mentality of both sides to understand the nature of their relationship, to accept the new reality of Iraq and work on true confidence-building measures between the two cities. Historically, Iraq has been defined by a strong Baghdad with a dictator, while Erbil has served as the center of an armed opposition movement.
This has changed; today, Baghdad does not have as much control, and has an elected government in which the Kurds are represented.
Erbil is the capital of a region that is trying to rebuild what Baghdad destroyed over an 80-year period. Both Baghdad and Erbil still don’t digest this reality.
Erbil still sends a “negotiating team” to a government that they are part of; and Baghdad still behaves as if it is giving Erbil a share that it would not otherwise “deserve”.
The two sides are still trying to figure out what federalism means in the new Iraq. The constitution provided guidelines, but day-to-day operations are proving that each has a different understanding.
Miscommunications and misunderstandings on fundamental issues are usually cleared up by two groups: the technocrats and the politicians.
So far, most of the communication between Baghdad and Erbil has been led by politicians, and the delegation that appears on TV newscasts is usually the entire team on both sides.
A government official in Erbil, who is not a politician, said that on “many occasions, our politicians try to solve deep and complex issues with high-level handshakes.” He said that the absence of technocrats on these talks causes serious misunderstandings: “Each side thinks that they have agreed to something different”.
The statements after every breakthrough meeting are nearly identical – they even include the same language — because the talks are always between a small circle of people.
This is creating a strong perception of a lack of transparency amongst the public.
The public in Iraq in general is not clear on exactly what the issues are; what (or who) is causing the tension; how were they solved; or what happened that caused the breakthrough.
As a result, the public sentiment is one of resentment or even rejection of “the other”.
The distance between ordinary Kurds and Arabs should have been a lot closer than what it is today.
The reality is that dialogue between these two cities is quite dysfunctional, to say the least. Relations between the Kurds and Arabs today are reduced to politicians, Arab tourists during holiday seasons and a small amount of business. None of these help the public understand the other side’s reality.
To create permanent solutions, our politicians need to step back a bit and allow for other non-political bridges to be built between the two cities. It’s time to get the technocrats of both sides to iron out the issues, and then bring together political leaders to place their signatures on clear, open and permanent agreements.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Monday, January 24, 2011
Kirkuk: the case for plan B
The way things stand now, one can predict that in the next 50 years Kirkuk will still be one of the sticking points between Baghdad and Erbil.
Today, the rhetoric is that Kirkuk is the heart of Kurdistan — the Quds of Kurdistan. In reality, it is the sick child of Iraq. The whole family is trying to prescribe its own medicine to cure this child, yet no one seems to be succeeding.
Looking at the various positions on Kirkuk, the Kurdish stance seems the most consistent and fixed. The views of the other communities have ranged from denying Kirkuk’s Kurdistani identity to a systematic policy of Arabization and ethnic cleansing.
The Kurdish leadership constantly reminds the world, the Kurdish people and its own officials that Kirkuk has always been the make-or-break issue for Kurdish negotiations, relations and wars with Baghdad.Kirkuk’s status has always been the ultimatum. It has, on many occasions in Kurdish history, destroyed movements or caused major setbacks.
The key reason for this is that the Kurdish popular stance on Kirkuk — including its identity, its people and future — has always been strong and non-negotiable. This was necessary during the days of the revolution, when Kurds were harnessed by Saddam’s regime and international isolation. Today, all three are gone.
Looking at the position today, the leadership, political parties and the public are accepting nothing short of the implementation of article 140. Before that, it was nothing short of article 58 of the transitional administrative law.
Regardless of the historical facts and Kirkuk’s more recent history, there are new facts on the ground today that were placed by the former regime and preserved by the new Iraq. These new realities cannot be removed quickly, to say the least.
Strength is helpful when negotiating issues. But if you look around and see that yours is the least popular and practical position — regardless of whether you are right or not, whether you are strong or not, and whether you have the constitution on your side — you should rethink your stance.
Looking at the non-Kurdish position on Kirkuk, one can see that almost all of the players stand on one side while the Kurds are on the other.
The neighbors and other regional players seem to be actively working to prevent any KRG control over Kirkuk.
Neither the UN nor the US nor any other member of the international community practically support the implementation of 140 or support making Kirkuk as part of the Kurdistan Region. Many of their recommendation publicly and privately confirm this. If fact, some even put the blame on the Kurds for not being able to have Kirkuk.
“The Kurds had the opportunity to reverse this quickly in 2003, but they were too busy with their internal KDP-PUK competition and with looting,” according to one of the US army commanders in Kirkuk at the time.
All of this is happening while the Kurdish leadership is at logger horns with Baghdad over this issue and others. The reality is that implementing 140 is not going to be easy — if not impossible.
With every day that passes, resolving Kirkuk according to the Kurds’ demands gets more difficult. The reason is simple: with every day that passes, more is at stake in the Kurdistan region.
As a revolutionary movement, as an isolated group or in defiance of Saddam’s regime, it was possible to say, “Kirkuk or nothing”. The people would have supported such statement. Today, it is almost impossible to give this ultimatum — it simply isn’t practical. But this is not reflected in our rhetoric. Our mantra is still: all-or-nothing.
But our leaders today are responsible for changing that mentality.
When plan A is not working, then it would be appropriate to look for plan B; to identify it, adopt it and promote it among the people.
Otherwise, when the public is faced with the tough reality that it is impossible to win Kirkuk as had been promised, it will be the leaders who will be pummeled with accusations and blame for failing to deliver on their promises.
A controversial and problematic point in emerging democracies is the “historic legitimacy” of leaders. But it can be particularly helpful in situations such as Kirkuk.
In Palestine for example, Mahmoud Abbas today cannot get away with Yasser Arafat-type statements and actions. Similarly, today’s leaders in Kurdistan cannot get away with what Mullah Mustafa Barzani could say or do. And future leaders will not be able to get away with what Mam Jalal and Kak Masoud can do or say today about Kirkuk.
The sooner the Kirkuk issue has a plan B, the easier it will be to resolve its status once and for all – a feat that will prevent Kirkuk from becoming a source of instability for Kurdistan, Iraq and the Middle East.
Today, the rhetoric is that Kirkuk is the heart of Kurdistan — the Quds of Kurdistan. In reality, it is the sick child of Iraq. The whole family is trying to prescribe its own medicine to cure this child, yet no one seems to be succeeding.
Looking at the various positions on Kirkuk, the Kurdish stance seems the most consistent and fixed. The views of the other communities have ranged from denying Kirkuk’s Kurdistani identity to a systematic policy of Arabization and ethnic cleansing.
The Kurdish leadership constantly reminds the world, the Kurdish people and its own officials that Kirkuk has always been the make-or-break issue for Kurdish negotiations, relations and wars with Baghdad.Kirkuk’s status has always been the ultimatum. It has, on many occasions in Kurdish history, destroyed movements or caused major setbacks.
The key reason for this is that the Kurdish popular stance on Kirkuk — including its identity, its people and future — has always been strong and non-negotiable. This was necessary during the days of the revolution, when Kurds were harnessed by Saddam’s regime and international isolation. Today, all three are gone.
Looking at the position today, the leadership, political parties and the public are accepting nothing short of the implementation of article 140. Before that, it was nothing short of article 58 of the transitional administrative law.
Regardless of the historical facts and Kirkuk’s more recent history, there are new facts on the ground today that were placed by the former regime and preserved by the new Iraq. These new realities cannot be removed quickly, to say the least.
Strength is helpful when negotiating issues. But if you look around and see that yours is the least popular and practical position — regardless of whether you are right or not, whether you are strong or not, and whether you have the constitution on your side — you should rethink your stance.
Looking at the non-Kurdish position on Kirkuk, one can see that almost all of the players stand on one side while the Kurds are on the other.
The neighbors and other regional players seem to be actively working to prevent any KRG control over Kirkuk.
Neither the UN nor the US nor any other member of the international community practically support the implementation of 140 or support making Kirkuk as part of the Kurdistan Region. Many of their recommendation publicly and privately confirm this. If fact, some even put the blame on the Kurds for not being able to have Kirkuk.
“The Kurds had the opportunity to reverse this quickly in 2003, but they were too busy with their internal KDP-PUK competition and with looting,” according to one of the US army commanders in Kirkuk at the time.
All of this is happening while the Kurdish leadership is at logger horns with Baghdad over this issue and others. The reality is that implementing 140 is not going to be easy — if not impossible.
With every day that passes, resolving Kirkuk according to the Kurds’ demands gets more difficult. The reason is simple: with every day that passes, more is at stake in the Kurdistan region.
As a revolutionary movement, as an isolated group or in defiance of Saddam’s regime, it was possible to say, “Kirkuk or nothing”. The people would have supported such statement. Today, it is almost impossible to give this ultimatum — it simply isn’t practical. But this is not reflected in our rhetoric. Our mantra is still: all-or-nothing.
But our leaders today are responsible for changing that mentality.
When plan A is not working, then it would be appropriate to look for plan B; to identify it, adopt it and promote it among the people.
Otherwise, when the public is faced with the tough reality that it is impossible to win Kirkuk as had been promised, it will be the leaders who will be pummeled with accusations and blame for failing to deliver on their promises.
A controversial and problematic point in emerging democracies is the “historic legitimacy” of leaders. But it can be particularly helpful in situations such as Kirkuk.
In Palestine for example, Mahmoud Abbas today cannot get away with Yasser Arafat-type statements and actions. Similarly, today’s leaders in Kurdistan cannot get away with what Mullah Mustafa Barzani could say or do. And future leaders will not be able to get away with what Mam Jalal and Kak Masoud can do or say today about Kirkuk.
The sooner the Kirkuk issue has a plan B, the easier it will be to resolve its status once and for all – a feat that will prevent Kirkuk from becoming a source of instability for Kurdistan, Iraq and the Middle East.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Iraq's Najaf: An Iranian shrine or a Middle Eastern Vatican
Walking through the streets of Najaf, the city appears to be just another place in Iraq that requires extensive development and services. But the truth is that this holy city is capable of tipping the political balance in Iraq.
Not many people in the Sunni world appreciate the importance of Najaf. Since 2003 it has been an influential centre of politics in the new Iraq. In many ways, it has served as the country’s premier political resort, with leaders from nearly every Iraqi community visiting the Ayatollahs to win their blessing.
Post-2003, Iraqi political leaders turned it into a powerful locale for politicking: Whenever there was a problem, officials, especially Shia, ran to Najaf to convince the Grand Ayatollahs to be on their side or at least create the impression that the Marjiiyyah – a body that was usually careful not to publicly back one party or leader — was one their side.
As a result, in the eyes of some observers inside Iraq and most outside of the country, Najaf’s religious leadership was made to be part of Iraq’s tumultuous conflicts on many occasions. An important factor that contributed to this was the silence of the Marjiiyyah on non-Iraqi issues, including Iran’s disputed 2009 presidential election and the situation in Lebanon.
The presence of the Grand Ayatollahs, the leaders of the Shia faith, makes Najaf not just a holy center for Iraq but for the entirety of the Shia world. Many still remember the role the city played in toppling the regime of the Shah of Iran by hosting the leader of the Islamic revolution. Despite this, there is no question that had it been embraced by the Arab states, Najaf could have had a much more influential role in Middle East politics.
Many call Najaf the “Vatican of the Shia” — and it could become the Vatican of the Middle East rather than a local center for Iraqi politics. The holy city could have this influence if the Arab world approached it differently.
While many Arab countries complain about Iran’s influence in Iraq, they have not been effective in countering it. Rather than considering the Shia of Iraq as part of Iran; turning a blind eye on Al-Qaeda’s attacks on Iraq’s Shia people and shrines; and also allowing outrageous public insults and attacks on the Shia faith and its symbols; the Arab world could have approached Najaf as the centre of gravity for the Shia faith — which is essentially an Arabist faith.
As a consequence of the Sunni Arab neglect of Najaf and the Shia of Iraq, Iran became the de-facto leader of the Shia faith. This naturally turned Najaf into a religious capital,www.ekurd.netor even a shrine, and made Qum the political capital of the Shia world. Many observers and some insiders have confirmed that the last round of negotiations to form the government was held secretly with Muqtada al-Sadr in Qum.
Today, an opportunity presents itself to turn the corner by giving Najaf a different role than the one it had in the past.
But for this to happen, Iraq’s political leaders should stop going to Najaf for arbitration or support, and the Marjiiyyah should take a tougher stance against those who want to drag it into their petty politics. Rather than consider political requests, they can simply close the door.
With the Arab summit approaching and the changed attitude some Arab countries have showed towards Iraq, they too have an opportunity bring the Shia of Iraq into the Arab fold. But this will not happen through statements or a fly-by visit of someone like Arab League secretary-general Amr Mousa — who visited Grand Ayatollah Sistani last week — alone. The Sunni Arab world could declare it’s genuine support for the new Iraq and offer their genuine help to make things work.
For example, the weak infrastructure, the dilapidated buildings and poor services put Najaf in dire need of assistance. Providing this aid could be one way to create a city with remarkable potential, a proud and developed holy place representing the best of both Iraq and Shia Islam. Whoever has the foresight to takes the first step could do much more than build a better metropolis, however – they would be seizing the opportunity to win the hearts, power and minds of one of the world’s most revered holy cities.
Not many people in the Sunni world appreciate the importance of Najaf. Since 2003 it has been an influential centre of politics in the new Iraq. In many ways, it has served as the country’s premier political resort, with leaders from nearly every Iraqi community visiting the Ayatollahs to win their blessing.
Post-2003, Iraqi political leaders turned it into a powerful locale for politicking: Whenever there was a problem, officials, especially Shia, ran to Najaf to convince the Grand Ayatollahs to be on their side or at least create the impression that the Marjiiyyah – a body that was usually careful not to publicly back one party or leader — was one their side.
As a result, in the eyes of some observers inside Iraq and most outside of the country, Najaf’s religious leadership was made to be part of Iraq’s tumultuous conflicts on many occasions. An important factor that contributed to this was the silence of the Marjiiyyah on non-Iraqi issues, including Iran’s disputed 2009 presidential election and the situation in Lebanon.
The presence of the Grand Ayatollahs, the leaders of the Shia faith, makes Najaf not just a holy center for Iraq but for the entirety of the Shia world. Many still remember the role the city played in toppling the regime of the Shah of Iran by hosting the leader of the Islamic revolution. Despite this, there is no question that had it been embraced by the Arab states, Najaf could have had a much more influential role in Middle East politics.
Many call Najaf the “Vatican of the Shia” — and it could become the Vatican of the Middle East rather than a local center for Iraqi politics. The holy city could have this influence if the Arab world approached it differently.
While many Arab countries complain about Iran’s influence in Iraq, they have not been effective in countering it. Rather than considering the Shia of Iraq as part of Iran; turning a blind eye on Al-Qaeda’s attacks on Iraq’s Shia people and shrines; and also allowing outrageous public insults and attacks on the Shia faith and its symbols; the Arab world could have approached Najaf as the centre of gravity for the Shia faith — which is essentially an Arabist faith.
As a consequence of the Sunni Arab neglect of Najaf and the Shia of Iraq, Iran became the de-facto leader of the Shia faith. This naturally turned Najaf into a religious capital,www.ekurd.netor even a shrine, and made Qum the political capital of the Shia world. Many observers and some insiders have confirmed that the last round of negotiations to form the government was held secretly with Muqtada al-Sadr in Qum.
Today, an opportunity presents itself to turn the corner by giving Najaf a different role than the one it had in the past.
But for this to happen, Iraq’s political leaders should stop going to Najaf for arbitration or support, and the Marjiiyyah should take a tougher stance against those who want to drag it into their petty politics. Rather than consider political requests, they can simply close the door.
With the Arab summit approaching and the changed attitude some Arab countries have showed towards Iraq, they too have an opportunity bring the Shia of Iraq into the Arab fold. But this will not happen through statements or a fly-by visit of someone like Arab League secretary-general Amr Mousa — who visited Grand Ayatollah Sistani last week — alone. The Sunni Arab world could declare it’s genuine support for the new Iraq and offer their genuine help to make things work.
For example, the weak infrastructure, the dilapidated buildings and poor services put Najaf in dire need of assistance. Providing this aid could be one way to create a city with remarkable potential, a proud and developed holy place representing the best of both Iraq and Shia Islam. Whoever has the foresight to takes the first step could do much more than build a better metropolis, however – they would be seizing the opportunity to win the hearts, power and minds of one of the world’s most revered holy cities.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Security – a chronic vacuum
Iraq’s failure to appoint its security ministers is a black mark on the new government, and is yet another indication that the country’s politics remain dysfunctional.
The irony here is that security is one of the most urgent challenges for Iraq, and yet it is still the most problematic and controversial portfolio for the government.
Iraq’s politics seem to have turned the country’s priorities upside down. A country with immense security challenges should have appointed its security ministers first, especially given that Iraq is facing a tough deadline to solidify its safety measures as the Arab summit approaches in March.
The sad truth is that with the current state of our politics, fragile security will continue to be a permanent feature of our state.
As things stand today, all of the elements of deteriorating security and even civil war are still there — dysfunctional, divisive politics; a lack of trust between the people; a lack of confidence in the state; and a highly militarized and armed society.
The main reason for the delay in naming the ministers is the lack of trust between the political blocs, which has created a quota system designating certain parties and sects for the security ministries.
Just like many other areas of state-building, security can only be achieved if it is depoliticized.
For security to be realized in Iraq, a number of steps need to be taking. First and foremost, Iraq should strengthen its leadership and rally the public to remain vigilant,www.ekurd.netwhile creating fear amongst those who intend to breach security. So far, Iraq has not managed to produce a leader who can speak for all Iraqis. Unfortunately, there are no signs that we are going to have a leader like this in the foreseeable future.
This can only happen when there is a political process that represents the public’s will and when all citizens feel they have a stake in and ownership of the country. This in turn would contribute to creating a strong sense of loyalty to the state, a culture of rule of law and a common identity amongst all Iraqis.
This type of atmosphere would pave the way for a peaceful and demilitarized society. It would be the start of putting weapons in the hands of the state – an important pre-requisite for any real change in security to take place.
This can only happen if Iraqis who possess weapons are convinced that the state is protecting them. It is imperative that Iraqis have decent incomes and a quality of life, which would stop them from making livings off of their weapons while enabling them to trust their fellow Iraqis, regardless of whether they are from the same sect or ethnicity.
Although these goals may seem unattainable at the present time, substantive efforts should be exerted to generate these conditions. The government has the duty to prevent a security vacuum from being created again. Good governance would guarantee quality living conditions for Iraqis and a true national reconciliation — in addition to promoting a culture of forgiveness and tolerance — and would restore trust amongst Iraqis.
The irony here is that security is one of the most urgent challenges for Iraq, and yet it is still the most problematic and controversial portfolio for the government.
Iraq’s politics seem to have turned the country’s priorities upside down. A country with immense security challenges should have appointed its security ministers first, especially given that Iraq is facing a tough deadline to solidify its safety measures as the Arab summit approaches in March.
The sad truth is that with the current state of our politics, fragile security will continue to be a permanent feature of our state.
As things stand today, all of the elements of deteriorating security and even civil war are still there — dysfunctional, divisive politics; a lack of trust between the people; a lack of confidence in the state; and a highly militarized and armed society.
The main reason for the delay in naming the ministers is the lack of trust between the political blocs, which has created a quota system designating certain parties and sects for the security ministries.
Just like many other areas of state-building, security can only be achieved if it is depoliticized.
For security to be realized in Iraq, a number of steps need to be taking. First and foremost, Iraq should strengthen its leadership and rally the public to remain vigilant,www.ekurd.netwhile creating fear amongst those who intend to breach security. So far, Iraq has not managed to produce a leader who can speak for all Iraqis. Unfortunately, there are no signs that we are going to have a leader like this in the foreseeable future.
This can only happen when there is a political process that represents the public’s will and when all citizens feel they have a stake in and ownership of the country. This in turn would contribute to creating a strong sense of loyalty to the state, a culture of rule of law and a common identity amongst all Iraqis.
This type of atmosphere would pave the way for a peaceful and demilitarized society. It would be the start of putting weapons in the hands of the state – an important pre-requisite for any real change in security to take place.
This can only happen if Iraqis who possess weapons are convinced that the state is protecting them. It is imperative that Iraqis have decent incomes and a quality of life, which would stop them from making livings off of their weapons while enabling them to trust their fellow Iraqis, regardless of whether they are from the same sect or ethnicity.
Although these goals may seem unattainable at the present time, substantive efforts should be exerted to generate these conditions. The government has the duty to prevent a security vacuum from being created again. Good governance would guarantee quality living conditions for Iraqis and a true national reconciliation — in addition to promoting a culture of forgiveness and tolerance — and would restore trust amongst Iraqis.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
In the new Iraq, some are more equal!
While the international community our leaders, the media and the public are preoccupied with the petty politics of Iraq, a dangerous place is emerging – a society that is intolerant of difference, breeds extremism and is getting more and more isolated in this age of integration.
With every day that passes the signs of this are becoming more and more clear.
One day, a Church is attacked, a few days later the Muslims celebrated Eid al-Adha as if nothing has happened.
A few days later, Baghdad council decided to ban the sale or serving of alcohol in the capital.
Days later, the ministry of education decided to ban theatre and music studies from the institute of fine arts.
Last week, the number of women ministers was reduced to Zero. After starting with seven in the first cabinet in 2004, a womanless government was announced.
This week Muslims are commemorating Ashura, and the Christians did not celebrate Christmas as they are expected to respect the event!
Although the government, the media and public says that we are all the same, the reality today is that there are different Iraqis today. There are Iraqi Sunnis, Iraqi Shia, Iraqi Christians, Iraqi Yezidis, Iraqi Mandaeans and others.
If you happen to be a woman or an artist, a talented person, a secular, a liberal, a Christian or a member any other smaller religious or social group, your space is reducing by the day. Iraq is not yours as much as it is the country of the other. And very little is being done by the authorities to prove the contrary.
While the debate over liberties and the rule of law is usually overshadowed by security in some countries, it is the contrary in Iraq. Curtailing the liberties and undermining the rule of law is happening for the same reasons that the extremists are fighting for and not for security considerations.
In fact it is counterproductive, curtailing liberties, undermining rule of law and discriminating would alienate more people and hence their sense of ownership of the country would be reduced. This in turn would be at the expense of security.
In any society or country, when things start to go wrong, it would be the duty of the leaders of society and politics to bring things back on track.
In Iraq, the challenge is different. Iraq was never a country fit for all its’ people. It is everyone’s duty to prove the contrary. The leaders, the media and the public all bare responsibility to face this challenge.
Neither today seems to be up to the level. But of the three the leaders bare most responsibility.
If on Christmas Eve, a leader attended a church mass, or a leader made a strong statement against those who want to take Iraq back to the dark ages,www.ekurd.netor if PM Maliki does not come back to Parliament without women ministers, the media would report that and the public would follow suit.
It is gestures like these that would turn Iraq from being a theocracy of the dark ages to a country fit for all.
With every day that passes the signs of this are becoming more and more clear.
One day, a Church is attacked, a few days later the Muslims celebrated Eid al-Adha as if nothing has happened.
A few days later, Baghdad council decided to ban the sale or serving of alcohol in the capital.
Days later, the ministry of education decided to ban theatre and music studies from the institute of fine arts.
Last week, the number of women ministers was reduced to Zero. After starting with seven in the first cabinet in 2004, a womanless government was announced.
This week Muslims are commemorating Ashura, and the Christians did not celebrate Christmas as they are expected to respect the event!
Although the government, the media and public says that we are all the same, the reality today is that there are different Iraqis today. There are Iraqi Sunnis, Iraqi Shia, Iraqi Christians, Iraqi Yezidis, Iraqi Mandaeans and others.
If you happen to be a woman or an artist, a talented person, a secular, a liberal, a Christian or a member any other smaller religious or social group, your space is reducing by the day. Iraq is not yours as much as it is the country of the other. And very little is being done by the authorities to prove the contrary.
While the debate over liberties and the rule of law is usually overshadowed by security in some countries, it is the contrary in Iraq. Curtailing the liberties and undermining the rule of law is happening for the same reasons that the extremists are fighting for and not for security considerations.
In fact it is counterproductive, curtailing liberties, undermining rule of law and discriminating would alienate more people and hence their sense of ownership of the country would be reduced. This in turn would be at the expense of security.
In any society or country, when things start to go wrong, it would be the duty of the leaders of society and politics to bring things back on track.
In Iraq, the challenge is different. Iraq was never a country fit for all its’ people. It is everyone’s duty to prove the contrary. The leaders, the media and the public all bare responsibility to face this challenge.
Neither today seems to be up to the level. But of the three the leaders bare most responsibility.
If on Christmas Eve, a leader attended a church mass, or a leader made a strong statement against those who want to take Iraq back to the dark ages,www.ekurd.netor if PM Maliki does not come back to Parliament without women ministers, the media would report that and the public would follow suit.
It is gestures like these that would turn Iraq from being a theocracy of the dark ages to a country fit for all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)