Print ArticleLiberation from the grip of occupation is one of the most arduous tasks facing any nation. At times, its bloody struggle can stretch over decades, as is the case with the Kurds. Kurdish independence is complicated by its geographical location and its bountiful natural resources. It has been divided between the countries of Iraq, Syria, Iran and Turkey. Each of these countries has been notorious for its violation of human rights and each is a staunch opponent of not only a sovereign Kurdish state, but also an autonomous Kurdish region within their federated state. These countries disagree on every issue except that of subduing the Kurds and their revolutionary movement for freedom and national recognition. They have all demonized and marginalized Kurdish minorities in their states. Turkey has constitutionally disenfranchised the Kurds; in Syria, Kurds are forbidden Syrian citizenship and treated as second class citizens; Iran has been similarly opposed to Kurdish equality. In Iraq, where Kurds have suffered genocide under Saddam Hussein, the American liberation has allowed the Kurds some breathing space for the moment. Kurds have attempted to free themselves through numerous but unsuccessful armed rebellions throughout their history. In each case, it was primarily the lack of effective leadership that led to brutal suppression of the rebellions. And even now, under American liberation, the Kurds are threatened with a return to old dark days – or worse – unless Kurdish leaders embrace their responsibility to their people. More than any time in their history, Kurdish leadership is in the spotlight.
Kurdish liberation is complicated not only by its geography, centered as it is between the most violent nations in the world, but also by its inability to produce an effective leadership that can address the Kurdish cause with a united stand. The priority, of course, is an urgent need for a leader who represents the national desire for independence and who can mobilize the nation, as he seeks to turn dream into reality. It is perfectly sensible for any nation to have more than one political party, each reflecting a different view of how best to implement a commonly accepted system of governance. But it is detrimental and counterproductive to have more than one leader in a revolutionary stage of development. No nation in modern history has been able to pursue liberation with multiple leaders, for multiple leaderships can only divide a house, sacrificing much needed unity in favor of personal advantage.
Iraqi Kurds have been engaged in an armed struggle for their statehood for more than four decades and have not yet reached a point that promises success and future security. During most of this period, Kurdistan has been divided into two kingdoms, each with its own king, where only one is needed. This situation has more to do with the personal ambitions of the leaders, and their desire for dynasty, than the interest and well being of the nation. There is no ideological or fundamental difference that distinguishes one from the other except their personal desires for power. Kurdistan could only benefit from the rise of a new popular leader with a national agenda rather than a personal one, as seems to be the case with the two reigning leaders.
The nation has clearly suffered civil war and thousands have been sacrificed in the decades of living under two leaders. Without question, these lives have been lost only to satisfy the power struggle of two selfish individuals who have brought shame to the nation. Instead of unifying the nation and directing its resources toward a common good, they divided Kurdistan into two separate regions, each governed by an opposing political party, each with their own armed force, separate budget, and inconsistency in governance. Moreover, each of the appointed leaders was more concerned with appeasing their own cronies, thus ignoring the well being of commonwealth.
The current divided house is demoralizing and serves as a constant reminder of a potential renewed civil war. The reason for the past civil war, the struggle for power, has not evaporated. It is very much alive and will only be resolved through a united front that cannot be thwarted. The problem is any confrontation or disagreement between the two dominant forces can re-ignite civil war and lead to an ultimate national catastrophe.
Time is ticking, and time is not on the side of the Kurds. It is time for both leaders to agree to act in accordance with the national interest. One must step down, but if they cannot come to an agreement on which one, let them both step aside and pave the way for a new leadership that people can trust. After all, neither of the two have any credibility. People are tired of them both. The two leaders have done everything in their power to accommodate themselves, their families, and their cronies. They have acquired lands, wealth, and prestigious jobs, and all at the expense of the people whose interests they profess to represent. Now it is the people´s turn.
The gloomy days of the past national annihilation resulting from civil war will easily be repeated unless the leadership is consolidated into one sensible leader, mindful of past national tragedy and future threats. Kurds have endured this heinous phenomena of multiple leaders whose tyranny has crippled their choices. The pages of history portray many dictators who were undone by their own sins, while other nations ended ruinously due to their arrogant or wicked leaders. This, without any doubt, will happen to the Kurds. When it does happen, let us hope it will happen to the leaders and not the people of Kurdistan, for they do not deserve another tragedy because of the guilty actions of corrupt leaders.
Kurdish liberation is complicated not only by its geography, centered as it is between the most violent nations in the world, but also by its inability to produce an effective leadership that can address the Kurdish cause with a united stand. The priority, of course, is an urgent need for a leader who represents the national desire for independence and who can mobilize the nation, as he seeks to turn dream into reality. It is perfectly sensible for any nation to have more than one political party, each reflecting a different view of how best to implement a commonly accepted system of governance. But it is detrimental and counterproductive to have more than one leader in a revolutionary stage of development. No nation in modern history has been able to pursue liberation with multiple leaders, for multiple leaderships can only divide a house, sacrificing much needed unity in favor of personal advantage.
Iraqi Kurds have been engaged in an armed struggle for their statehood for more than four decades and have not yet reached a point that promises success and future security. During most of this period, Kurdistan has been divided into two kingdoms, each with its own king, where only one is needed. This situation has more to do with the personal ambitions of the leaders, and their desire for dynasty, than the interest and well being of the nation. There is no ideological or fundamental difference that distinguishes one from the other except their personal desires for power. Kurdistan could only benefit from the rise of a new popular leader with a national agenda rather than a personal one, as seems to be the case with the two reigning leaders.
The nation has clearly suffered civil war and thousands have been sacrificed in the decades of living under two leaders. Without question, these lives have been lost only to satisfy the power struggle of two selfish individuals who have brought shame to the nation. Instead of unifying the nation and directing its resources toward a common good, they divided Kurdistan into two separate regions, each governed by an opposing political party, each with their own armed force, separate budget, and inconsistency in governance. Moreover, each of the appointed leaders was more concerned with appeasing their own cronies, thus ignoring the well being of commonwealth.
The current divided house is demoralizing and serves as a constant reminder of a potential renewed civil war. The reason for the past civil war, the struggle for power, has not evaporated. It is very much alive and will only be resolved through a united front that cannot be thwarted. The problem is any confrontation or disagreement between the two dominant forces can re-ignite civil war and lead to an ultimate national catastrophe.
Time is ticking, and time is not on the side of the Kurds. It is time for both leaders to agree to act in accordance with the national interest. One must step down, but if they cannot come to an agreement on which one, let them both step aside and pave the way for a new leadership that people can trust. After all, neither of the two have any credibility. People are tired of them both. The two leaders have done everything in their power to accommodate themselves, their families, and their cronies. They have acquired lands, wealth, and prestigious jobs, and all at the expense of the people whose interests they profess to represent. Now it is the people´s turn.
The gloomy days of the past national annihilation resulting from civil war will easily be repeated unless the leadership is consolidated into one sensible leader, mindful of past national tragedy and future threats. Kurds have endured this heinous phenomena of multiple leaders whose tyranny has crippled their choices. The pages of history portray many dictators who were undone by their own sins, while other nations ended ruinously due to their arrogant or wicked leaders. This, without any doubt, will happen to the Kurds. When it does happen, let us hope it will happen to the leaders and not the people of Kurdistan, for they do not deserve another tragedy because of the guilty actions of corrupt leaders.
view author's RSS feed
