World isn’t ready for Greater Kurdistan’

By Hemin H. Lihony British academic says Kurdistan cannot follow Kosovo model due to war zone environment. A British academic and author insists that the US-led war on Iraq was a “mistake”, citing among other reasons the lack of international legitimacy. Also, despite some improvement in the security conditions due to the recent surge, he believes that a stable Iraq is not possible in the short or medium term because of the multiple power struggles taking place across the country and the absence of institutions. Dr. Philip Robins, a fellow at St Antony’s College, Oxford, and a university lecturer who has published various academic and policy-oriented journals on the contemporary Middle East, said: “Even though the security situation has improved in Iraq somewhat as a result of the surge, the decision to go to war in 2003 was a mistake.” He cited four reasons in support of his claim: “One, there was no bedrock of international legitimacy for it; two, most of the Western allies were warning against it; three, war is a sledgehammer with many unforeseeable consequences; four, public opinion, certainly in the UK, was against it meaning that there was no domestic democratic underpinning for it.” Dr. Robins, who served for eight years as the head of the Middle East program at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in Britain’s leading foreign affairs think tank Chatham House, added that a stable Iraq is possible but not probable in the short to medium terms. “How can we expect such a near term outcome when Iraqis have been brutalized for many years, institutions either do not exist or are very weak, primordial affiliations dominate as part of the coping mechanism that Iraqis have developed, and there are multiple power struggles taking place across the country?” he asked. According to Dr Robins, ‘Project Iraq’ is a long term ambition, which must be thought in approximation of 20 years from today. “We have to think in terms of 20 years. We need to create benefits for ordinary people that will make them want to be part of a new Iraq. That means reconstruction, prosperity and safety. Not until we can get these three goals feeding off each other will a vicious circle be replaced by a virtuous one,” he explained. With regard the Kurdish question, Dr Robins specified two dimensions: the Kurds in the states that they inhabit and the Kurds as a collectivity in the region as a whole. “Global standards of good governance require that the Kurds be treated humanely and equally. Human rights abuses and similar examples of bad practice are no longer acceptable, if they ever were. What should the arrangement be between Kurdish communities and the central states in question? That’s a matter for discussion and negotiation in the individual states,” he said. “I fully understand why Kurds in Iraq, for instance, are pushing so hard for a decentralized constitutional system given their experiences of the recent past… I doubt that the worlds, let alone the Arab, Turkish and Iranian worlds, are ready for a Greater Kurdistan.” Likening the Kurdish question to that of Kosovo’s independence, he stressed that at this time Kurds cannot follow those steps primarily due to the fact that Kosovo lies in Europe, which for the most part is a zone of peace. Moreover, he said, the bellicose powers on the ground in the Balkans are small and relatively weak. He contrasted this to the Kurds as they live in a region which is for the most part a zone of war. “The bellicose powers in their neighborhood are much larger and better armed,” he said. “The risks of failure are therefore much, much greater.” Asked why the US and UK have not set clear policies regarding the Kurds, Dr Robins replied simply that “we live in a world of nation-states.” “States like Iran and Turkey are strong states that can cause a lot of problems on the ground. The Kurds in Iraq do not have a state, which reduces their influence. I think that people in the US and Britain who know the contribution of the Iraqi Kurds to the international effort to bring down Saddam Hussein and his regime are very grateful,” he said. “They [US and Britain] want there to be a positive outcome for the Iraqi Kurds however they cannot make policy in a regional vacuum.”

Kurds must maintain lobbyists in DC to protect their interests’

By:
Hemin Hussein Lihony

Dr. Charles G. MacDonald is a Professor of International Relations. He has done research on the Kurds since 1983 when he participated in a National Endowment for the Humanities summer program for faculty on ethnic and religious minorities in the Middle East and Central Asia.

His initial topic was the Kurds in Iran. Since then he has given papers at national and international conferences on issues affecting the Kurds. He has published articles and book chapters on the Kurds.

He has recently published a book, Kurdish Identity, with University Press of Florida (jointly edited with Carole O'Leary of American University). Now Dr. Charles G. MacDonald is President of the Kurdish Studies Association, an organization affiliated with the Middle East Studies Association.

Five years on, how do you see the Iraq war?

I was strongly opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning. Yes, I firmly believe that it was a mistake based upon serious errors of judgment. It was simply wrong. It has severely affected the way that people look at the US and in some ways has encouraged terrorism.

Many people in the US were led to believe that Iraq was responsible for the 9-11 attack, which simply was not true. Yes, Saddam did many terrible things, especially to the Kurds.

Although nothing is easy, I do believe that we could have supported our interests in the Middle East and those of the people in the area in a better way. If action was necessary, we should have waited for greater international consensus and support.

I participated in the Atlantic Council Working Group on Iraq. We prepared a policy paper on managing transition. Unfortunately, the Bush administration chose an essentially unilateral policy.

At some point, a decrease in violence in Baghdad will be sustainable. It is also important for stability to be established throughout Iraq and the region. More cooperation must be encouraged both among the Iraqi people, and between Iraq and its neighbors. When security is again in the hands of the Iraqis, there will be a greater chance for peace in Baghdad and in Iraq as a whole.

Do you think the federal system can bring a durable solution for Iraq as Josef Biden proposed to the Senate?

Biden’s proposal for Iraq attempts to find a fair and just solution for each of the Shia Arabs, the Sunni Arabs, and the Kurds, as well as provide guarantees for women and minorities.

If everyone would agree, a federation based upon three autonomous parts could work, especially if oil revenues were fairly divided. The oil-for-food program previously had some successes that suggest allocating oil revenues to regions of Iraq can encourage development.

Personally, I feel that many different proposals can work, if people in Iraq are willing to cooperate. I fear that if the US tries to get credit for a solution, anti-American groups will try to sabotage it simply because the US is associated with it.

There is no doubt in my mind that a federative system can work, if the Iraqis can support it and gain the support of Iraq's neighbors for the plan.

Apparently there will be huge differences between Democrats and Republicans in regards Iraq? If so, how will this impact the Kurdish issue?

Unfortunately, many people (including both Democrats and Republicans) continue to misunderstand the complexity of the issues in Iraq. Similarly, many people remain confused about the Kurdish issues. If one listens to the candidates from both parties, it is apparent that there is little understanding about Iraq and the Kurds.

They seem to be arguing about whether to pull out US troops or to commit more troops to fight the terrorists. Americans want to identify who is the enemy in Iraq. They miss the point that the US must be willing to work with all parties in Iraq and all of Iraq’s neighbors if a peaceful and stable Iraq is to be established.

Many good intentioned Americans are also quite confused about the Kurds - confused about the PKK, Al Qaida, Turkey, and the Iraqi Kurds. This suggests that there will be little difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to Kurdish issues.

Both will be influenced by experts who do not always appreciate the complexity of the issues. We can hope for the best, but realize that it will be very important for the Iraqi Kurds to maintain good public relations in Washington, DC. The Kurds must maintain lobbyists in DC to protect their interests among both the Democrats and Republicans.

Do you think the alliance between the Kurds and the US is strategic or ad hoc?

Many people in the US see the Iraqi Kurds as being an ally of the US in Iraq. The US military and others who have worked with the Kurds in Iraq know the positive relationship is more than strategic and more than ad hoc. However, the problem of understanding the complexity of Turkish interests confuses many Americans.

The idea of good Kurds (in Iraq) and bad Kurds (PKK being identified as terrorists) complicates the picture for many policy makers. Some see Turkey as an American ally. Others distrust Turkey. I think that greater attention should be given to limiting the violence between Turkey and the Turkish Kurds.

Turkey should not attack anyone in Iraq. No one from Iraq should attack Turkey. Violence too often clouds reason and causes the desire for revenge. The US should work closely with the Iraqi Kurds on a permanent basis to protect Kurdish rights and interests. In return, the Kurds should work for peace in Iraq and with its neighbors.

The interests of the Turkish Kurds and the PKK should be addressed fairly and without violence. A political solution, not a military solution, is necessary. Unfortunately, it remains difficult for Turkey and the PKK to find a common ground.

The Kirkuk referendum is delayed. How does this affect the legitimacy of the constitution?

The issue of the Kirkuk referendum remains difficult and a potential flash point for violence and conflict. It is provided for in the Constitution, but the practical implementation of the referendum was not spelled out. The spirit of the Constitution should prevail, even if it is deemed necessary to delay the referendum.

The Constitution is a restraint on those in power, but it is also subject to interpretation and thus is an instrument of those in power. If the Government of Iraq is weak and does not have the support of the different regions or major power groups, it must work harder to build cooperation.

The Kirkuk issue brings to the table the interests of Iraq’s neighbors in addition to the different ethnic and religious groups in Iraq. Increased cooperation within Iraq can eventually bring a solution to Kirkuk, and to the question of the Constitution.

What impact do Kurdish-American relations have on Turkish-American relations?

This is a very difficult question. It remains a function of the character of the American policy makers. In my view the US should maintain strong relations with both the Kurds and Turkey. If there are issues between Turkey and the Kurds, the US should work diligently to resolve any problems.

The US must, however, be opposed to the use of violence across international boundaries. During the Iraq war, the US made it clear to Turkey that the US would not tolerate a Turkish invasion of Northern Iraq. The US should work to address Turkish concerns, but stand firm on the sovereignty of international borders.

The idea of bombing terrorist across the border should not be acceptable, but armed groups should not strike across the border into Turkey. The most practical solution would be to promote some form of cease-fire between Turkey and the PKK.

In your opinion how does the US see the Kurdistan Regional Government? In my view, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) is seen as a genuine effort in democracy and self-rule. The record of the KRG is to be emulated by others in Iraq and beyond. All governments have shortcomings and problems to address, but under the circumstances, the KRG is viewed as a friend by our military and by many Americans in the know.

Do you think the US should have military bases in Kurdistan?

I think that the positive relationship between the United States military and the Kurds should continue. I think that a military presence in the Kurdish region is essential for many reasons. It would provide an additional degree of security for the Kurds and would give the United States a stake in what goes on in the area.

I would not use the term military base to identify the nature of the US presence because it can be misinterpreted. Military bases are often associated with imperialism and unequal relationships.

A military presence, however, can reflect a mutual relationship rather than an unequal relationship. I was at a dinner when some of the military commanders responsible for establishment of Operation Provide Comfort spoke about the original military operation.

From the military standpoint, it was viewed with pride and as an operation to protect a worthy people. This feeling still exists.

“If my plans were put into practice, there would have been a different outcome.” says Garner

By: Hemin Hussein Lihony

Garner, in his short stay in position continuously backed Kurdish claims, impressing Kurdish people and leaders. He came to Kurdistan this time with a different agenda, that is business; bringing with him businessmen and companies. We saw him in the house of Slemani Governor, Dana Ahmad Majid: He accepted our interview, though for a short time only. Jay Garner, former American administrator in Iraq, told The Hawler Tribune, a federalist system brings rapid solutions to the Iraqi quagmire. This does not signify a weakness of the central government, Nonetheless, it remains responsible for issues such as; currency, taxes, border and foreign policy. “If America practiced the federalist system at the commencement, it would not have faced the current difficulties it faces; However, it is not too late at this point to put the system into practice,”.He adds “if we want a stable Iraq it must proceed to be a Federalist state,” During the interview Garner repeatedly assured us that he is a friend of the Kurds, however, he could not assure us America is a real friend of the Kurds. He said “I can not speak of the strategic relations between the Kurds and America because I am not a part of the American administration; I am unable to say what George Bush, Dick Cheney and Condoleza Rice think of the relations between America and the Kurds” When he was an administrator in Iraq, in his visits to Kurdistan he was always warmly welcomed with flowers, hence, his very positive attitude towards the Kurds in general. Jay Montgomery Garner is a retired United States Army general who was appointed in 2003 as Director of the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance for Iraq following the 2003 invasion of Iraq but he and his office were replaced after only one month by L. Paul Bremer, III and the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). He had not expected to be in the position for such a short time span, He further informed the Hawler Tribune “prior to my visit to Iraq I was told that my time would be short, despite this, I had not expected it to be this short. The reason behind my replacement was that I am not a diplomatic person. I had not accomplished any diplomatic duties.” Regarding, the situation in Iraq and Kurdistan Garner praised Kurdistan and described the rest of Iraq to be disappointing. He said “After 5 years on from the Iraqi war, the situation remains disappointing. In fact America achieved security development to some extent, nonetheless, if you look at the political process, it is very slow and the Kurdistan Regional Government is the only success story in Iraq” He further talked of Kurdistan, its success came down to two vital points. Firstly, its liberation 17 years ago from Saddam and secondly, the people of Kurdistan are very understanding and different. “Look at the structure of the KRG, there are numerous females within it, especially in Slemani. Out of five plan managers three are females. This indicates the activeness of the KRG, in having female participants. There is a constitution in Kurdistan providing minority rights. We can say Kurdistan can be an example for the rest of Iraq.” He further complimented the Kurdish leaders for their efforts for Kurdish unity. He said “In Iraq Kurds have suffered a lot; however, they have been able to remain intact. Currently, Kurds have various natural resources, yet the important thing here is the method of using these resources that are available. It should be used in a way that will encourage young people to remain in their land.” Regarding democracy and human rights in Kurdistan, recently published numerous reports criticized the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in that democracy is still fragile, as well as the violation of human rights. Garner said “Democracy is not a perfect system and contains many flaws; to have a proper democratic system requires time and confrontations will be faced. Presently democracy in America is not flawless, despite the fact that it is a product of 200 years.” In relation to the KRG’s oil contracts in Kurdistan, Garner said that oil is crucial in the region, although the oil’s revenue across Iraq should be returned to the central government in Baghdad, otherwise the Shittes in Basra will become extremely wealthy. Hence, the central government should equally distribute the revenue, including to those areas not possessing oil. "Essentially, I guess the first day I got to Baghdad, I was a lame duck," Garner told the “Front line” while he said to The Hawler Tribune “If my plans were put into practice, there would have been a different outcome.” One of the Kurdish leaders dreams is an American military base in Iraqi Kurdistan. Garner supported this idea of the base and said, “I always support the US military base in Kurdistan. Not a large, rather a small military base consisting of an air force and one brigade. This has its importance, which is strengthening the relations between Kurds and America. Also it will send a message to Middle Eastern countries, America will remain, for long term stability”

kurdish Official Discourse Should Change From Kirkuk for Kurdistan to Kirkuk for Kirkukis, a US professor says

Hemin Hussein heminhussein@yahoo.com

US professor, Denis Natali believes that the Iraqi government does not respect the Constitution and all its articles. When it comes to the Kirkuk issue and article 140, she says that "It is no surprise or secret that most Arabs and regional states are against a referendum in Kirkuk." However, she also adds that "instead of trying to convince these opponents or explain why it is in their interest to have a referendum, the KRG has largely focused on Kurdish populations. The official discourse should change from Kirkuk for Kurdistan to Kirkuk for Kirkukis". Dr. Denis Natali is an American political scientist currently teaching Comparative Politics at the University of Kurdistan-Hawler. She is an expert in the Kurds and has followed Kurdish issue for about two decades. She is also an honorary fellow at the Institute for Arab and Islamic Studies at the Exeter University. How do you see the current tension between the Kurds and Central Government over Khanaqin? These tensions are a byproduct of the post-Saddam regime change and failure of the central government to recognize the constitutional rights of the Kurds, the territorial boundaries of the Kurdistan region, and the legitimacy of the Kurdistan Regional Government to protect its territory. They also reflect Baghdad’s disinterest in and refusal to implement article 140, which should clarify the territorial boundahrries and administrative status of the numerous disputed territories, of which Khanaqin is a part. Indeed, there may be some important security issues that involve heightened troops as part of the effort to stabilize insecure regions. But I think the larger issue is to further complicate the processes of a future referendum. Masud Barzani, President of Kurdistan region, said that he doubts being the Kurds a real partner in the central Government? What do you think? Yes. This is correct. The Kurds are not a real partner in the Iraqi government or the state. When significant meetings and decisions must be made regarding the Kurdistan region, Kurdish leaders are not invited or are told after the fact. Even though the constitution has legalized power-sharing and recognized the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), the real power is muted. Worse still, any partnership that may have existed with the central government – even in its partial form – has deteriorated since 2003 so that the Kurds are likely to see their influence and power weaken further as time passes and Arab communities in Baghdad become better organized. Many think that the Kurds now have not any cards to play in Iraq? What do you make of this? I would say that the Kurds do not have the best hand in the card game at the moment, certainly not as they did immediately after the overthrow of Saddam. But they have some leverage still in Iraq, particularly as it relates to economic development, maintaining regional stability, and controlling the PKK. The Kurds and the Kurdistan region are also one of the few regions in the Middle East that has a positive relationship with the US government and can be counted on as a regional ally. One also needs to examine what it is that the KRG and the Kurds are seeking in order to assess the nature of this leverage. If they are attempting to get article 140 implemented, than one can say that this leverage has declined. However, they can also change their tactics as a means of gaining greater support for their side. But if the objective is to increase, if not monopolize regional stability and economic development, then they can and should play this card, which is still strong. In your point of view, who should be blamed for not annexing Kirkuk by the Kurds since 2003? Cleary, if one reads the constitution of Iraq literally, then one can blame the central government for not respecting the constitution and implementing its articles in full. However, the Kirkuk issue is quite complex and cannot be attributed to one major actor. The Kurds have also not played their cards as well as they could have, particularly in the handling of the ‘election’ or lack there-of, of the provincial council in Kirkuk, the monopolization of power and influence by the two main political parties, the competition between the parties in the city, and the failure to appeal to the larger non-Kurdish community to gain their support. It is no surprise or secret that most Arabs and regional states are against a referendum in Kirkuk. Instead of trying to convince these opponents or explain why it is in their interest to have a referendum, the KRG has largely focused on Kurdish populations. The official discourse should change from Kirkuk for Kurdistan to Kirkuk for Kirkukis. If local populations in Kirkuk are becoming critical of their situation and of the Kurdish political parties, this is not Baghdad’s fault. Then one can also look at the influence of the government of Turkey, which also has intervened with the Turcoman populations and western powers, to impede a referendum. But again, the Kurds have to be more strategic in addressing these challenges. Do you think a workable power sharing between the Kurds and Arabs is possible in Iraq? I am quite skeptical, but do not see any other workable solution for the short or medium term. It depends upon what types of confidence building measures can be implemented to create a minimal level of trust between the regions. It also depends upon what type of leaders will be in charge in Baghdad. Right now there is Jelal Talabani, Barham Salih, Hoshyr Zibary, Mahmoud Othman, who can defend the interests of the Kurds. The real problem is when the leadership will change some day, and the Kurds lose their positions in the government. But I also want to remain optimistic that some type of power-sharing can work, with the ongoing support and intervention by foreign government, to assist in this project. Would one have ever thought that six years ago the Kurds would have a 7 billion dollar annual budget, or that they could negotiate multi-million dollar projects for their region, or that the region would become one of the most stable and economically viable in the country? This is an outcome of the recognition of the Kurdistan region in a federal Iraq. This form of governance, if it continues and is supported, may allow some form of power-sharing, even in a weakened form. Many believe that the Kurds in the new Iraq lost their golden opportunity because they have tried to reconcile the Shittes and Sunnis instead of fighting for their rights? What do you think? I disagree with this statement entirely. What options did the Kurds have after 2003 – should they have engaged in a war to ‘fight’ for their rights? This is absurd. If you measure the benefits of political stalemate that the Kurds and the Kurdistan region has gained over the past 5 years, because of their willingness to reconcile and be a part of the government, then the answer is clear. The KRG has become a legitimate government and recognized internationally just because of its moderate and compromising position. It has gained economically and politically because of this strategy. I do not see any other realistic choice, as opposition would have destroyed the sixteen years of relative autonomy and recognition they have established for the region. it would be political suicide. How do you see the future of the Kurds in Iraq? You, as an expert in Kurdish issue, what do you prefer to be done by the Kurdish leaders now? The Future of the Kurds is inside the Iraqi state and as an integral part of it. It is not much different than other quasi-states, be it South Ossetia or Abkhazia, because as a political entity, it needs an external patron, international support, and a weak central government for its survival. Thus, this will mean assuring legitimacy from international actors, support from the United States, and revenues to permit a certain level of internal sovereignty. The Kurds will also have to consider their particular geopolitical circumstances and the economics benefits of maintaining open borders and good relations with neighboring states. Again, a cursory look will reveal that their future is part of the Iraq state and not separate from it. Indeed, there is likely to be ongoing struggles for their political autonomy, constitutional rights, revenues, and power. However, the Kurds will have to continue to engage politically and in a peaceful manner, because they have too much to lose if they engage in armed conflict. I believe that the Kurdish leaders are fully aware of this and know they will have to make more compromises in the future. With that said, I also still see the Kurds as important players in Iraq from an economic perspective, and they can play an important role in the economic development and serving as a key gateway for Iraq and into Turkey and Europe. It can become more than a ‘transit zone’ and represent a stable and economically developing region.

Iraqi Kurds abuzz over rumors of Gül visit to Arbil

HEMIN HUSSEIN Oct 17th 2008

President Abdullah Gül has denied that he received an invitation to visit Arbil, the regional capital of the Kurdish administration running northern Iraq, during a planned visit to Iraq, but even media rumors that he might set foot in the Kurdish city have caused excitement among residents of northern Iraq. The Turkish media reported earlier this week that Gül was considering an invitation from the Kurds to visit Arbil to open an airport in the city. Gül stated later that he had plans to visit Iraq but that no date had yet been set. Earlier, his office had said there was no invitation for the president to visit Arbil. But the prospects of a presidential visit from Turkey have already excited Iraqi Kurds, who have had troubled relations with Turkey over the past several years. "The visit of President Abdullah Gül to Arbil will be the result of a very brave decision and will act as a building block for the relationship between Turkey and the Kurdistan regional government in Iraq; it will indeed act as a grand benefit for both sides," said Serbaz Hawrami, the chief of staff of Iraqi Kurds' regional prime minister, Nechirvan Barzani. "Although on our behalf no official invitation was sent to President Gül, we are more than delighted to hear the news of his visit," he added. The Arbil airport, which is expected to be opened soon, is the largest investment of Turkish companies in the region of northern Iraq, with an estimated overall cost of $420 million. In September Gül said he would like to visit Iraq in the near future, after Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, in a meeting in New York reiterated the invitation to Gül during a session of the UN General Assembly. Arez Abdullah, a member of the local Kurdish parliament who visited Ankara in May and met with numerous Turkish lawmakers, expressed satisfaction with any visit by Turkish officials. "For a long time we, as Iraqi Kurds, have desired such a visit by Turkish officials and it is in the interests of Turkey more than us." Ties between Turkey and the Iraqi Kurds have deteriorated following the US-led war on Iraq, with Ankara accusing the Kurdish administration of harboring the terrorist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which launches attacks on Turkey from its bases in northern Iraq. "We do not support the PKK; we even consider it an illegal group in our territory with no permission to operate here," said Abdullah. A source speaking on condition of anonymity told Today's Zaman that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki recently put a great deal of pressure on Kurdish leaders to have them aid in resolving tensions between the Kurdish administration and central government as soon as possible. Maliki told Iraqi Kurdish leader Masoud Barzani, currently in Baghdad, that it is necessary to solve all matters together; therefore, the Kurdish leaders are delighted to see any positive steps undertaken by Ankara, the same source said. In response to a question on the role of Turkey regarding the tensions between Arbil and Baghdad, Hawrami said: "Turkey is a very important neighbor for us in terms of political and economic affairs. Thus we hope to see a constructive role played by Turkey." The people of northern Iraq have become increasingly angry with the PKK attacks on Turkey and Turkish aerial strikes in northern Iraq in retaliation. Many believe that a visit by Gül could play a valuable role in finding ways to resolve the problem. Nyaz Abdullah, managing editor of Midya newspaper, renowned for its nationalistic rhetoric in the Iraqi Kurdish region, said: "We like to see Gül in our region; nevertheless, we hope the relations will not be at the expense of the Kurdish people's rights." Fatima Muhammad, 29, a former PKK member who is now working as journalist in northern Iraq, expressed mixed emotions concerning the prospects of Gül's visit to northern Iraq. She, like many others, is optimistic for the potential positive result of this particular visit. "No one is fond of violence. I am calling on President Gül and the Turkish state in general to solve the Kurdish issue in Turkey, if they really want to put an end to the PKK." As a former PKK member, she is one of the many who are waiting impatiently for a general amnesty to be able to return to Turkey. Maaruf Nabaz, 20, a graduate of one of the Turkish schools in northern Iraq, also expressed hope, comparing the current state of Kurdish-Turkish relations to that of the recent thaw between Turkey and Armenia. "As football took Gül to Yerevan and improved relations, it is possible that an inaugural ceremony could bring him to our region. That will facilitate a starting point to a route toward brotherly relations," said Nabaz, referring to Gül's September visit to Armenia to watch a World Cup qualifying match between national teams of the two countries. : TODAY'S ZAMMAN

Interview with Thomas Barnnet

Latest interview with Tom

Iraqi journalist Hemin Hussein Lihony interviews Tom:

HH: How do you see the the world after Bush?

TB: If the strategic paralysis created by having the U.S. military tied-down in Iraq/Afghanistan wasn't enough to discredit Bush-Cheney's unilateralism and self-limiting quest for primacy among the world's great powers, then certainly the current global economic crisis makes the following realization stunningly clear: we live in an interdependent world in which America cannot deal with any sizable problem--be it security or economic--without cooperating with this era's many rising powers.

Fortunately, we now have a president who knew that all along.

What was your reaction when Obama was elected president?

I voted for the foreign policy conservative (Obama) because I did not want to replace one radical (Bush) with another (McCain).

I think Obama is a systems-level thinker who explores the full repercussions of his decisions before making them. In this, the first truly global recession of a truly globalized economy, such contemplation before acting is essential.

Can we say now Iraq became a model for the region?

I have always believed Iraq to be a fake state stitched together from three nations by the Brits several decades ago, so any genuine move toward federalism is most welcome. I do worry, though, that as America draws down its military, Iran and Saudi Arabia will be greatly tempted to revive their proxy wars between Shia and Sunni in the south. For now, federalism consists of Kurds ruling Kurds, Sunni running Sunni, and Shia running Shia plus Baghdad. That might be a stable outcome, if not for Iran's ambitions and the House of Saud's fears.

Many think that the Obama administration wants a strong PM like Maliki, so the Kurds are fearful of another "Saddam". Do you think a strong central government works in Iraq any more?

Not for the Kurds, clearly, and probably not for the Sunni tribes so long as the Shia run Baghdad.

It is not yet clear what Maliki and the Shia and Iran will tolerate in this regard, and many of Maliki's steps suggest he has ambition for a more unitary state.

So we wait and see.

How do you see the Kirkuk issue considering the Kurds strongly reject compromise?

Virtually every newborn nation ends up settling for less territory than it originally wanted. That happened to the U.S. In 1783, Turkey in 1922 and Israel in 1948.

I think events will force the Kurds to consider being satisfied with their three current provinces. If the Kurds cannot abide this outcome, then I foresee conflict that will put the KRG's very existence at risk.

When it comes to start-up nations, the old saying still holds: a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Many think that America has no policy for the Kurds because Kurdistan is in a regional vacuum? What do you think?

I think Americans forget the Kurds because no American troops are stationed there or die there. If you want to be remembered in the days ahead, I would suggest hosting some U.S. troops permanently--before they're mostly gone.

Do you think Obama can do some thing regarding the peace process in the Middle East considering the rightist radicals won the Israeli election?

No, I do not.

So long as Israel has a monopoly on weapons of mass destruction in the region, I expect Iran to continue pursuing nuclear weapons, triggering the same response from Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

Then the strategic summitry will begin. That multilateral process will be forced upon the locals by outside great powers nervous over such strategic instability. At that point, I believe we will have the makings of a regional peace, including Arab recognition of Israel and the 2-state solution.

Until such a stand-off is reached, I expect no progress whatsoever.