Comment:: Kurds should not let language deepen divisions
Rauf Naqishbendi
July 24, 2007
An interesting news article recently came to my attention (London Financial Times).
The article is entitled “Kurds should not let language deepen divisions.” Mr. Nickolas and his co-author Mr. Damjan wrote, “After the Iraqi war, the international community made it clear that there will be no partition of Iraq.”
With all due respect to these writers, who else does “the international community” refer to other than the United States and its Turkish allies? Isn’t this the same international community that turned a blind eye on Saddam’s genocide against the Kurds? Where was this international community when Saddam bulldozed hundreds of thousands of Kurds during the “Anfal” campaign? If the international communities had sought justice in the past and had prevented both Saddam and the Turkish authorities from committing atrocities against the Kurds, then one could value their current-day plan and consider these new recommendations.
An accountable international voice that doesn’t include the United States is nonexistent. For this reason, the US has aligned itself with every barbaric regime since its rise as a world superpower. Saddam and Osama are good examples, as the US staunchly supported both of them not too long ago. Turkey and Saudi Arabia, two countries with the dirtiest human rights records in the world, have been considered friends of the US for more than half a century. The US has been fueling Turkish chauvinism with enormous monetary and military aid while disregarding the Kurds who are suffering at Turkish hands, disregarding their struggle for freedom and justice. That is the caliber of “the international community” referred to in the linked article. Why should Kurds give any credence to it at all?
Second, the notion that “a common Iraqi destiny is the only way forward” is a great fallacy, since it is well known that we Kurds have absolutely nothing in common with Arabs. Kurds refuse to be associated with the violent Arab culture and do not desire to ever revisit the dark and ugly days of past Arab domination. What we do desire is to dissolve our merger with the Iraqi Arabs, which has always been despised and resented, and not just because the Arabs are involved. No, we would reject a merger on the basis of subjugation with any nation. After all, our history with the Arabs has been one of ceaseless suffering from destruction, fire, massacre and bloodshed. We Kurds are peace-loving people and strongly advocate freedom and human liberty. Since the Gulf war, we have been free from Arab domination in Kurdistan, and our peaceful accomplishments, even with the less than perfect leaders, can be clearly measured. On the other hand, since the Iraqi liberation, by which the Arabs were freed from Saddam, one can only measure their accomplishments in bloodshed and chaos.
Additionally, Mr. Nikolas and Damjan assert that “a disturbing trend has arisen; few young Kurds speak Arabic. Instead, they learn English as their second language. English may be the lingua globolica but Arabic remains the lingua regionala.” These writers have the audacity to dictate to the Kurds how they should live and how Kurds they should strive to please the Arabs!
Surely they must realize that the Kurds do not live and breath to accommodate Arab fanatics and to fulfill their desire for world domination. Having said that, why is it so much important for Kurds to learn Arabic, when even the Arabs themselves can’t speak it well? Moreover, why waste time learning something regionala rather than something more respectful and useful that is globolica? English is an international language, the language of science and technology, so what could the Arabic language offer that could possibly surpass the advantages of speaking and knowing English? Should my children learn how to speak Arabic just to be able to learn the hateful slogan of Arab fanatics in their Al Arabia and AL Jazera TV broadcasts? No thanks.
The fact is that the Kurds must abandon the Arabic alphabet and use Latin instead. In doing so they can take advantage of up-to-date computer technology and reform their system of tracking and records. Also, the Arabic language in the Kurdish region must be abandoned as a mandatory second language and instead should be offered as an optional second language. I am not downplaying the Arabic language for no reason, but in all fairness it must be agreed that anything that is useful and necessary to learn in Arabic has already has been translated into English.
In conclusion, it’s not in the Kurdish interest to maintain Iraq’s existing map just to cheer up Arab nationalists. The map needs to be redrawn and our inspiration for independence as a sovereign nation must be granted. Once that happens, we can establish a good relationship with our Arab neighbors and can build economic and trade ties. The truth has been ignored for long enough and should now be universally acknowledged: Kurds and Arabs can only coexist peacefully in mutual independence rather than in a relationship of dominance and subjection.
The article is entitled “Kurds should not let language deepen divisions.” Mr. Nickolas and his co-author Mr. Damjan wrote, “After the Iraqi war, the international community made it clear that there will be no partition of Iraq.”
With all due respect to these writers, who else does “the international community” refer to other than the United States and its Turkish allies? Isn’t this the same international community that turned a blind eye on Saddam’s genocide against the Kurds? Where was this international community when Saddam bulldozed hundreds of thousands of Kurds during the “Anfal” campaign? If the international communities had sought justice in the past and had prevented both Saddam and the Turkish authorities from committing atrocities against the Kurds, then one could value their current-day plan and consider these new recommendations.
An accountable international voice that doesn’t include the United States is nonexistent. For this reason, the US has aligned itself with every barbaric regime since its rise as a world superpower. Saddam and Osama are good examples, as the US staunchly supported both of them not too long ago. Turkey and Saudi Arabia, two countries with the dirtiest human rights records in the world, have been considered friends of the US for more than half a century. The US has been fueling Turkish chauvinism with enormous monetary and military aid while disregarding the Kurds who are suffering at Turkish hands, disregarding their struggle for freedom and justice. That is the caliber of “the international community” referred to in the linked article. Why should Kurds give any credence to it at all?
Second, the notion that “a common Iraqi destiny is the only way forward” is a great fallacy, since it is well known that we Kurds have absolutely nothing in common with Arabs. Kurds refuse to be associated with the violent Arab culture and do not desire to ever revisit the dark and ugly days of past Arab domination. What we do desire is to dissolve our merger with the Iraqi Arabs, which has always been despised and resented, and not just because the Arabs are involved. No, we would reject a merger on the basis of subjugation with any nation. After all, our history with the Arabs has been one of ceaseless suffering from destruction, fire, massacre and bloodshed. We Kurds are peace-loving people and strongly advocate freedom and human liberty. Since the Gulf war, we have been free from Arab domination in Kurdistan, and our peaceful accomplishments, even with the less than perfect leaders, can be clearly measured. On the other hand, since the Iraqi liberation, by which the Arabs were freed from Saddam, one can only measure their accomplishments in bloodshed and chaos.
Additionally, Mr. Nikolas and Damjan assert that “a disturbing trend has arisen; few young Kurds speak Arabic. Instead, they learn English as their second language. English may be the lingua globolica but Arabic remains the lingua regionala.” These writers have the audacity to dictate to the Kurds how they should live and how Kurds they should strive to please the Arabs!
Surely they must realize that the Kurds do not live and breath to accommodate Arab fanatics and to fulfill their desire for world domination. Having said that, why is it so much important for Kurds to learn Arabic, when even the Arabs themselves can’t speak it well? Moreover, why waste time learning something regionala rather than something more respectful and useful that is globolica? English is an international language, the language of science and technology, so what could the Arabic language offer that could possibly surpass the advantages of speaking and knowing English? Should my children learn how to speak Arabic just to be able to learn the hateful slogan of Arab fanatics in their Al Arabia and AL Jazera TV broadcasts? No thanks.
The fact is that the Kurds must abandon the Arabic alphabet and use Latin instead. In doing so they can take advantage of up-to-date computer technology and reform their system of tracking and records. Also, the Arabic language in the Kurdish region must be abandoned as a mandatory second language and instead should be offered as an optional second language. I am not downplaying the Arabic language for no reason, but in all fairness it must be agreed that anything that is useful and necessary to learn in Arabic has already has been translated into English.
In conclusion, it’s not in the Kurdish interest to maintain Iraq’s existing map just to cheer up Arab nationalists. The map needs to be redrawn and our inspiration for independence as a sovereign nation must be granted. Once that happens, we can establish a good relationship with our Arab neighbors and can build economic and trade ties. The truth has been ignored for long enough and should now be universally acknowledged: Kurds and Arabs can only coexist peacefully in mutual independence rather than in a relationship of dominance and subjection.
Print
Email
