Kurdistan's 'Change' Claims Advance in Sulaimaniya;
US Withdrawal From Iraq Could be Affected by Kurdish-Arab Conflict
On Sunday, the Change List in the Kurdistan Regional Government elections made the startling claim that it had won in Sulaimaniya, a long time stronghold of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan of aging Iraqi president Jalal Talabani. Noshirvan Mustafa, the leader of Change, broke with the PUK two years ago, alleging corruption and abuse of human rights. (Mustafa's first name is spelled a lot of different ways in the wire services because it is Persian but most reporters based in Iraq are used to Arabic, so they transliterate out of that language).
Presidential candidate Halo Ibrahim Ahmed of the rival Progress List, who is challenging incumbent Massoud Barzani, also alleges corruption in the running of Iraqi Kurdistan.
McClatchy reports two narratives about the election. One, from the Kurdistan Alliance establishment, claims 80 percent turnout and free, happy voters. The Change List charged that the turnout was more like 55 percent and that there were abuses such as pressure at the voting booths, canvassing around them, and Peshmerga soldiers trying to vote multiple times.
Reuters has more on the opposition's allegations of poll violations.
If the Change List were to capture a significant number of seats in the 111-member Kurdistan Regional Government parliament, it could have an impact at the margins on the way the confederacy is governed. But the likelihood is that the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Massoud Barzani and Talabani's PUK will continue to run the place jointly, and Barzani will retain all the extensive prerogatives of the presidency.
The NYT reports that Gorran is hoping for some 45 seats in the 111-member parliament but that outside observers peg their likely share as about a third. That is an earthquake in Kurdistan politics, even so. So Kurds worry that Baghdad might exploit internal differences among the Kurds to assert greater influence in the northern confederacy.
Aljazeera English has video on controversies over the election procedure among Iraqi Kurds abroad:
Analysts in China, which has recently had some ethnic violence itself, worry that Arab-Kurdish conflicts over places like Kirkuk in Iraq's north could destabilize the region. (Note to American readers: such a conflagration would be highly likely to draw the US military right back into Iraq on a large scale and derail Obama's withdrawal timeline.)
When the dust settles from the election, the issues left over regarding Kurdistan's constitution and its relationship with Arab Iraq will come to the fore. These can be guessed at if we consider this piece from a couple of weeks ago, translated from the PUK press by the USG Open Source Center:
Iraqi Kurdish editorial blames 'enemies' for delay of vote on constitution
Kurdistani Nuwe
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Document Type: OSC Translated Text . . .
Iraqi Kurdish editorial blames "enemies" for delay of vote on constitution
Text of article by editor-in-chief Kawa Muhammad entitled "The regional constitution", published by Iraqi Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) newspaper Kurdistani Nuwe on 15 July
The Independent High Electoral Commission in Iraq (IHEC) has finally announced that it cannot hold a referendum on the (Kurdistan Region) constitution on 25 July. Although the possibility was already there that owing to the lack of sufficient time, the IHEC could not make necessary preparations for the referendum, the announcement coincided with US Vice-President Joe Biden's visit to Iraq - his visit and its agenda have created lots of debate in Iraq.
As far as the Kurdistan Region is concerned, the sandstorm was not the only obstacle to his Arbil visit, which forced him to speak to (Iraqi) President (Jalal) Talabani and (Kurdistan Region) President (Mas'ud) Barzani on the phone. It seems opponents of the regional constitution had an effect. How?
Some Iraqi parties and groups which oppose the idea of Kurdistan having its own constitution, along with some chauvinistic groups and individuals as well as pressures from regional states, all have had an impact on Iraqi Prime Minister (Nuri) al-Maliki to seek a suitable opportunity to obstruct Kurdistan's constitution. Thus, he exploited Biden's visit to convince him sway Kurdish leaders from passing the constitution under the pretext that it might restrict solving the pending problems between Bagdad and Arbil. We should be aware that the real reason behind these pressures and pretexts is their fear that Kurdistan might become even stronger if it were to have own constitution, as well as rights enshrined in the Iraqi constitution, and that this might strengthen Kurdistan's political and constitutional will and establish an independent Kurdish state in future. Only this and nothing else is the core of the issue.
It is appropriate to concentrate on those internal individuals and parties in the Kurdistan Region who were against the constitution recently and tell them: Dear brothers the same constitution that you said it would create a dictator and did not define Kurdistan Region's borders the same constitution made Kurdish enemies hysteric as it strengthens the Kurdish nation's roots and increases its political options. Thus, I tell you do not make the rejection of the referendum your achievement, because this is not an "achievement" to be proud of.
(Description of Source: Al-Sulaymaniyah Kurdistani Nuwe in Kurdish -- daily newspaper published by Iraqi Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK))'
End/ (Not Continued)
posted by Juan Cole @ 7/27/2009 12:10:00 AM
|
Facebook
8 Comments:
The Kurdish warlords are stunned by the explicit rejection by the USA, who are supposed to be eternal allies and cannot afford to upset the Kurds in any way.
So they are blaming Maliki! He told Biden to block the Kurdish "constitution", and Biden said "Yes, sir".
Note to American readers: such a conflagration would be highly likely to draw the US military right back into Iraq on a large scale and derail Obama's withdrawal timeline.
I wouldn't think Maliki would go to war with the Kurds. He wants the US out.
On the other hand, it is crystal clear that the Kurds do want the US to remain, and may provoke conflict, in order to obtain that end.
The old idea of civil war in Iraq, which was just supposed to appear out of nowhere, is dead now. And the issues over which conflict may occur are clear. The Kurds need to defend their winnings, or perhaps: consolidate them. For the gains are not secure. The constitution is not finalised, and Kirkuk is far from resolved.
Hi Juan,
My team and I observed the elections in Suly.
I don't doubt that irregularities occurred esp. in Arbil and Dohuk, but in terms of the 13 voting centers that my team observed in Suly, we can report the following for those centers:
(1) voter turnout appeared to be strong with 70% of voters turning out to most polls by 12 noon, and most voters were indeed jubilant.
(2) for the Bakrajo center where we observed the ballot count, voter turnout was nearly 80%. In the race for parliament, Gorran won 47%, Kurdistani won 37%, and the Services & Reform List won 11%. In the Presidential race, Dr. Kamal Mirawdeli won 46%, Massoud Barzani won 42%, and Halo Ibrahim Ahmed won 5%.
(3) at each voting station, IHEC staff reported turning away voters who were not on their list. The ave. seemed be be around 7 out of 400 or so voters.
(4) At every voting station both for the special and general election, there was a heavy presence of local observers. No counting us, the least # of observers we found was 3 at one station. The most we found was 10. The ave. number was 7.
(5) We found no evidence of any major irregularities. The heavy presence of observers that we found in Suly, most of whom stayed until the ballot count was complete, helped prevent any would-be wrongdoers. IHEC reported registering more than 16,000 local observers and 302 international observers.
(6) We found a lack of coordination among international observers. Hopefully there will be strong leadership and coordination the next time.
Last but not least, it should be noted that IHEC Chief Faraj al-Haydari is a former KDP man. That may not be an issue, but it certainly puts the burden on him and his deputies to prove themselves to be impartial, professional, and free of any influence from political parties and leaders, esp. Barzani.
Furthermore, the international community ought to insist that IHEC develop a "conflict of interest" policy. Seems pretty basic in my view.
Best, Erik
ref : “Arab-Kurdish conflicts over places like Kirkuk in Iraq's north could destabilize the region. (Note to American readers: such a conflagration would be highly likely to draw the US military right back into Iraq on a large scale and derail Obama's withdrawal timeline.)” That Arab-Kurdish conflicts would destabilize the region is obvious. That destabilization of the 'Kurdish' region would cause the US military to occupy, (for that is what they would have to do, Juan), "the 'Kurdish' region" ~ recognize it, secure some notion of nation or territorial "border", and defend it, thus... now imho THAT would be not only unlikely, given the sentiment of the American and the Iraqi public, but an entirely unprecedented outcome: given the history of the Kurds, and those peoples within whom they remain for all intents and purposes, contained. That is to say, their 'destiny' has always been dis-enfranchisement and disappointment; and frankly, I see no reason to suggest that "this time around," this end-game result would be any different. déjà vu : No one in the region, and no one in TheWest will preserve, protect and defend The Kurds.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/world/middleeast/28military.html
July 28, 2009
Gates Says U.S. Overture to Iran Is ‘Not Open-Ended’
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates’s comment came as the Israeli defense minister expressed impatience that the United States was willing to talk to Iran at all.
[Israel's government is convinced that it can control American foreign policy with regard to any interest of Israel's in the Middle East.]
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/27/headlines#1
July 27, 2009
Israel: All Options on Iran Are Still on the Table
By Amy Goodman
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Mideast envoy George Mitchell have arrived in Israel for a new round of talks with the Israeli government. National Security Adviser James Jones and Special Mideast Adviser Dennis Ross head to Israel in the coming days. Gates’s visit was partially aimed at dissuading Israel from taking any military action against Iran and buying time for US diplomacy to bear fruit.
Gates said he hopes Iran will respond by September to the Obama administration’s offer for talks on its nuclear program.
“The President has been quite clear that this is not an open-ended offer to engage. We’re very mindful of the possibility that the Iranians would simply try to run out the clock. I think that the President is certainly anticipating or hoping for some kind of response this fall, perhaps by the time of the UN General Assembly.”
After meeting with Gates, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak refused to rule out an Israeli attack on Iran.
“We clearly believe that no option should be removed from the table. This is our policy. We mean it. We recommend to others to take the same position, but we cannot dictate it to anyone.”
The Obama administration and Israel are also said to be close to a deal on Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. Washington will reportedly allow some settlement projects in advanced stages of construction to be completed, but Israel would freeze all other building for an as-yet-undetermined period of time. Meanwhile, the Israeli government has revealed that more than 300,000 Jewish residents now live in settlements in the West Bank, an increase of 2.3 percent since January.
[So the Palestinians are to be forever driven to nothingness.]
Your eesay is up at Tom Dispatch !!!
Armageddon at the Top of the World: Not! A Century of Frenzy over the North-West Frontier
Good Stuff !!!
Report: US commanders 'incompetent' over nine soldiers killed in Afghan battle of Wanat
An unpublished report into one of the US Army's darkest days, when nine soldiers were killed by the Taliban at a remote Afghan outpost, has branded their commanders incompetent.
Post a Comment
<< Home