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 
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment