Jump to content
Baghdadee بغدادي

الأكراد وقرار مجلس الأمن الجديد حول العراق

Recommended Posts

When Washington chooses short-term political gains over long-term strategic advantage, we repeat our worst past errors, from buttressing the Shah of Iran to supporting Saddam Hussein. Appeasement isn't a strategy. Quiet isn't peace. Iraq was quiet under the old regime.


Date: 11 June 2004

Source:KDP website



THE United States has a reputation for rewarding its enemies, while taking our friends for granted. It's not very reassuring to potential allies. Now we're proving yet again that we can't be trusted.

In a shortsighted effort to please a fundamentalist who will never be our friend, the Bush administration caved in to the demands of the Shi'a Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani to win his acquiescence to this week's U.N. resolution. The essence of Sistani's position was that the Kurds had to be stripped of their ability to make a legal defense of their civil rights, security and liberty in the new, "free" Iraq.

Under terms agreed to by all of Iraq's ethnic and religious groups in March, an interim constitution gave the Kurds a ballot-box veto over oppressive new laws. It was a simple democratic safeguard. But with Washington playing beat-the-clock, Sistani refused to support the U.N. resolution unless all reference to the interim constitution was dropped.

We gave Sistani everything he wanted, as well as pandering to Iraq's Sunni Arabs — who massacred the Kurds just over a decade ago.

The Kurds received neither of the top positions in the new government. Their best man, Dr. Barham Salih, was given a token job without defined responsibilities. Iraq's Arabs would control the country's future.

Now the Kurds warn that they might not join the new Baghdad government. Our self-righteous diplomats are aghast. But what if we were Kurds? Would we entrust the future of our families to those who did their best to wipe our people from the face of the earth?

What will we do, should the Kurds refuse to bow to Arab tyranny? Send in our troops to enslave them in the name of Allah the Merciful and the agents of Tehran?

Sistani didn't make this crisis. We did. Through our spinelessness and impatience.

The Kurds supported us during the war. They support us even now. The Kurdish regions of Iraq are the only peaceful, law-abiding, democratic territories in the country — complete with women's rights, secular education and true religious freedom (including the freedom not to live according to the dictates of bitter old men in turbans).

Kurdistan is the living, breathing model of what we claim we wish for the Middle East. And we're handing it over to brutal, backward bullies.

For the sake of quiet until the November elections, as well as to please the decayed Arab regimes in the neighborhood, we've rewarded Iraq's Arabs, who never tire of complaining about America — and who kill our troops whenever they get the chance.

Our position is immoral, vicious and stupid. And — for all the Realpolitikers out there — counterproductive. Consider the messages we're sending to the Middle East and beyond:

- America can't be trusted. No matter what you do for Washington, you can't count on the United States in your hour of need.

- America cares only about power and influence, not about democracy, human rights or minority rights. Washington's rhetoric means nothing.

- America can be bullied. Washington doesn't have the stomach for a real fight, but will give in to those who make the gravest threats.

- Since America doesn't care about freedom for its Kurdish allies, the invasion of Iraq was only about oil, after all.


It doesn't matter if some of these perceptions aren't true. Perception trumps reality. We pretend we're making peace, but we're only making a mess.

Our diplomats imagine they're playing a deep game. But they're playing checkers while our enemies play chess. Sistani and even carnival-midway touts like Ahmed Chalabi prance around us while we stand there with our eyes closed, counting to 100. They toss us a piece of licorice while they run away with the candy store.

When Washington chooses short-term political gains over long-term strategic advantage, we repeat our worst past errors, from buttressing the Shah of Iran to supporting Saddam Hussein. Appeasement isn't a strategy. Quiet isn't peace. Iraq was quiet under the old regime.

What about freedom?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

June 11, 2004


Kurds Find U.S. Alliance Is Built on Shifting Sands



ASHINGTON, June 10 — Before the war to oust Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration counted on the Kurdish minority in northern Iraq as its closest ally. But now ties with the Kurds have reached a bitter new phase, with some Kurdish leaders charging that they have been betrayed by Washington.


The problem, in the Kurds' view, was reflected in an administration decision this week to rebuff Kurdish pleas to have the United Nations Security Council give its blessing to the temporary Iraqi constitution, which they see as protecting their rights.


Kurds value the document because it gives the three Kurdish provinces the effective power to veto a permanent constitution, which is to be written next year. They fear that the Shiite majority may try to impose Islamic law through the new constitution, or dilute Kurdish control of oil fields in their region.


"It's not just that we have been misled by the Americans," said a high-ranking Kurdish official. "It's also that they change their position day to day without any focus on real strategy in Iraq. There's a level of mismanagement and incompetence that is shocking."


The temporary constitution, hammered out under American supervision in March, was hailed by the American authorities at the time as one that would prevail until a new constitution is written and ratified and a permanent government takes office under its provisions.


But Iraq's new leaders, in statements this week, described it as only operative until the beginning of next year, when a newly elected national assembly convenes to write the permanent charter.


Iraq's new prime minister, Iyad Allawi, who was picked under a process led by the United Nations, said in Baghdad that the document approved last March remains the law of the land for now. His comment was intended to reassure Kurds, but Kurdish spokesmen said Thursday that it may have had the opposite effect.


The reason is that Dr. Allawi's comments implied that the newly elected national assembly could well change the ratification process for the permanent constitution, endangering the Kurds' veto.


The omission of references in the Security Council resolution to the temporary constitution, known as the transitional administrative law, came at the insistence of the supreme Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.


Kurds, stunned at the omission, are threatening to withdraw from any Iraqi government unless the temporary constitution is reaffirmed through next year.


Ayatollah Sistani, the most revered figure among Iraq's Shiites, who constitute about 60 percent of the population, has gained enormous power in the waning months of the American occupation, which formally ends in two and a half weeks.


Administration officials say they have had no choice but to follow his dictates. When he called for an end to the American offensive against Shiite rebels in Najaf, American military commanders complied, even lifting their order for the arrest of a rebel leader, Moktada al-Sadr.


In the end, the officials say, Kurds are going to have to make their own arrangements with the Shiites for ratifying the constitution.


"The Kurds are saying to us, `We are your true allies, the only people in Iraq who truly like you and who respect your values.' " said Noah Feldman, a New York University law professor who advised on the drafting of the temporary constitution.


"The U.S. is saying, though maybe not explicitly, `We want you to have power, but if Sistani is going to put his name on a letter to the U.N. demanding things be done his way, we're not going to go to the mat over it," Mr. Feldman added. "Frankly, the U.S. is a little scared of Sistani."


Another former adviser to the American occupation, Larry Diamond, said the problem stemmed not from Ayatollah Sistani's position, but from the original demand by the Kurds that they be given an effective veto over a future constitution.


"I am profoundly sympathetic to the concerns of the Kurds, but I think they overreached in these negotiations," said Mr. Diamond, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. "They wound up obtaining a settlement that was unsustainable in light of continuing Shiite objections."


Mr. Diamond said the United States should try to negotiate some kind of a deal between the Shiites and Kurds to avoid a worse confrontation later.


He added that it was possible that without such an arrangement, Shiite religious leaders would press the new Iraqi government to take other steps to change the law, including a repeal of a ban on extending Islamic law to such matters as marriage and divorce.


"We have a budding crisis here," said Mr. Diamond. "My fear is that if we don't get a broad societal consensus behind this document, the whole thing could unravel down the road. I would rather fix it now with a compromise."


Responding to Kurdish criticism, Richard A. Boucher, the State Department spokesman, said Wednesday that the failure to include the transitional law in the United Nations resolution was insignificant, because the resolution endorsed the law's principles of pluralism and minority rights in general.


"What the resolution did was stick to the basic principles that are embodied in that law," Mr. Boucher said.


American officials deny that they betrayed the Kurds and reject the idea that American diplomats should try to mediate a solution to Iraqi federalism.


Rather, they said, the United States had created a situation where the Kurds will have to negotiate their future with supporters of Ayatollah Sistani, and seek their own accommodations.


"This is going to become the first big test of the government in Iraq," said a United Nations diplomat. "You've got a government. Now let's see how much internal and external pressure they can take."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A day to celebrate

Jun 10th 2004

From The Economist Global Agenda


In a sign of growing respect for the rights of its largest ethnic

minority, Turkey has allowed Kurdish-language broadcasts to begin and has

freed from jail a leading Kurdish politician and three colleagues. But

Turkey still has some stains to clear from its human-rights record


BY ANY standards, Wednesday June 9th was a memorable day for Turkey’s

Kurds—numbering perhaps 12m, or more than one in six of the population.

State television aired its first-ever broadcast in the most widely spoken

Kurdish dialect, Kurmandji. And hours later, an appeal court released the

country’s most prominent female Kurdish politician, Leyla Zana—a former

Nobel peace-prize nominee—along with three colleagues, who had spent ten

years in jail after being convicted on charges of belonging to the Kurdish

separatist rebel group, the PKK. Though their appeal will not be heard until

July, they are not expected to return to jail, whatever the outcome. While

their brethren across the border in Iraq fretted about the lack of any

guarantees of Kurdish autonomy in the United Nations resolution passed this

week, thousands of Turkish Kurds took to the streets to celebrate, waving

the once-banned red, green and yellow Kurdish flag.


Since the carve-up of the collapsed Ottoman empire at the end of the

first world war, the Kurds—now around 25m strong—have been mainly divided

between four inhospitable countries: Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran (see map

above). They have endured decades of repression and of being used as pawns

in regional power struggles. Many Kurds, especially the large numbers who

migrated to western Turkey, have assimilated and intermarried. Some, though,

dream of uniting their fragmented populations in an independent Kurdistan,

the like of which has not existed for centuries. But the Turkish state, keen

to build a unified nation, has long denied the Kurds’ existence—even the

word “Kurdish” was banned until recently.


Mrs Zana’s “crimes” included speaking Kurdish in the Turkish

parliament—even though she was calling for peace between Turks and Kurds.

Savouring freedom on Wednesday, she declared that her struggle was not over,

but that “sunny days” awaited the country if everybody worked together for

“peace, justice and democracy”. Both the freeing of the politicians and the

launch of Kurdish broadcasting were intended in part to chivvy European

Union leaders into giving Turkey a date for the start of membership talks at

their summit in December. The EU has seen Mrs Zana’s plight as a test-case

for Turkish democracy and justice. Günter Verheugen, the European

commissioner for enlargement, said that the court’s decision showed Turkey’s

reforms were “gaining ground”.


Much credit is due to Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan,

and his Justice and Development party, which came to power 19 months ago.

The party, established by former Islamists, has used its parliamentary

majority to push through a raft of sweeping reforms. Earlier this year,

parliament approved a draft law banning discrimination against homosexuals;

and the government’s Religious Affairs Directorate instructed Muslim

preachers to condemn “honour killings”—the murder by men of female relatives

deemed to have besmirched the family’s moral reputation. Mr Erdogan also

strong-armed his Turkish-Cypriot protégés into backing the latest UN plan to

reunite Cyprus, though it was then rejected by the Greek-Cypriot side in a

referendum in April.


But credit is also due to Turkey’s hawkish generals, if only because

for once they have not sought to block change. This is not to say that

Turkey’s dreadful human-rights record is now squeaky clean. This week alone,

police in Istanbul detained 25 Kurdish journalists who were accused of links

with the PKK.


In matters that touch on religion, Mr Erdogan still has to tread

carefully around the armed-forces chiefs, who see themselves as the

guardians of Turkey’s secular constitution. Last month, the Turkish

president, Ahmet Necdet Sezer, vetoed a bill that would make it easier for

graduates of religious schools to enter secular universities, which Mr

Erdogan had pushed through parliament against the generals’ strong

objections. The government is now expected to go back to parliament with a

less provocative version of the bill, later this year.


A peaceful and durable settlement of Turkey’s Kurdish question is not

yet assured. For that to happen, the government would have to persuade the

generals to agree to the PKK’s calls for a full amnesty for all 5,000 or so

of its fighters, as well as for its remaining leaders, who are hiding in the

mountains of Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq. Earlier this month, the

rebels threatened to resume their war because of the Turkish government's

failure to heed their demands, which include freeing their top leader,

Abdullah Ocalan, who has been in jail since 1999.


Turkey is stepping up pressure on American forces in Iraq to root out

and disarm the PKK. Caving in to Turkish demands, the EU has added the PKK

to its own list of terrorist organisations. Though it seems unlikely that

most Kurds are ready to be dragged into a new war, the risk is that

terrorism is just what the increasingly beset guerrillas might resort to,

unless Turkey finds a formula to forgive their past misdeeds.


In the 12th century, the most famous Kurd in history, Saladin,

recaptured Jerusalem for Islam and ruled an empire stretching as far south

as Egypt. But it began to crumble soon after his death, amid factional

squabbles that have made it easy for neighbouring powers to divide and rule

the Kurds ever since. Those in Iraq regained considerable autonomy, under

America’s aegis, after the first Gulf war. Turkey’s worst nightmare is that,

one day, its Kurds may be emboldened to rise up with their brethren in Iraq

and those in Syria (who recently staged a revolt against their oppressive

rulers) to fight for a revived Kurdistan, encompassing the rich oilfields of

northern Iraq. Thus the Turks will be relieved that this week’s UN

resolution on Iraq made no explicit promises of Kurdish self-rule, whereas

it did emphasise that Iraq must remain a united country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strategic decisions on the Kurdish problem

By Mehmet Ali Birand

Turkish Daily News 11 June, 2004



I say once more, Turkey is changing at such a fast pace that it surprises even its own people. Unbelievable steps are being implemented.

Moreover, these changes are taking place without any significant crises. There are still those who object to them of course. They argue that the process of dividing Turkey has started and claim that a game is being play over Turkey's future. They say the nation is being lost.


Doomsayers are still trying to spread bad news. However, they have no influence. They need to realize they have no chance of stopping Turkey advancing on the road to modernity, or of it returning to its former dark days.


Turkey is finding itself and its self-trust is growing. It is ridding itself of its past fears.


These decisions don't just happen We should be aware that these decisions are no coincidence.


A very long process, the changes society went through and internal and

external dynamics have brought us to where we are today.


The fact that we have Kurdish broadcasting and education today, that former Democracy Party (DEP) deputies are released pending a re-trial and that the Kurdish issue can be discussed on TV in detail, are due to Turkey taking a strategic decision to change its attitude about the Kurdish problem. A new era is beginning in Turkey.


The Republic of Turkey, which used to say, "There are no Kurds and there is no Kurdish language," has proved that it has entirely changed its former stance. The existence of Kurds and the Kurdish language are now accepted.


If viewed from this perspective, everyone will see what a great revolution Turkey has implemented. Turkey did the right thing.


PKK should heed this change. Now, let's look at the other side of the coin. Kurdish groups, especially the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), and particularly their

leadership, should assess these developments carefully.


If the PKK says: "Now we can fully exploit Turkey's weakness. Let's try to make them accept all our demands. If our demands are not met, let's re-commence our armed struggle," then they will commit a very serious mistake.


The Turkish public is suspicious of the PKK. It is believed the steps taken by the government will make Kurdish militants more determined to increase their demands.


The PKK should not make any mistakes. If it does, it will cause

significant damage to Turkey, but even more damage to itself. If the PKK

decides to re-commence its attacks at a time when the entire world is

against terrorism -- and is very sensitive about territorial integrity -- it

will put a stop to the developments taking place in Turkey and push the

country towards war with no international help.


The state should also find a new perspective. The Republic of Turkey is now looking at the Kurdish problem from a very different perspective. The amnesty granted to the militants did not produce the expected results. It is obvious that it has to assess the developments and broaden its perspective.


Not permitting Kurdish mayors attending official ceremonies and

refusing to even talk with them must be stopped, with a more inclusive

policy being implemented.


If the steps taken are mutual, Turkey can rise to its potential. If

not, we'll stay right where we are. That would indeed be unfortunate.


Not for the EU, for Turkey...

I was surprised when I read yesterday's newspapers. Almost all said

that the DEP deputies were released because of the European Union. The EU

may have played a motivating role in the affair, but Turkey doesn't take

such steps just to get a date to start EU membership.


No Turkish government can take such steps if it entails risking

Turkey's integrity. The only reason these steps were taken was because the

PKK terror has been tamed. Kurdish broadcasts and the attitude towards the

DEP deputies cannot be explained in such a way as was described in the



If we don't accept the fact that these steps were taken to resolve the

Kurdish problem, how will we convince our Kurdish citizens? What will happen

if we do not get a date to start membership negotiations? Will we throw the

DEP deputies back into jail?


We are being unfair to ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you BagdadeeMod for posting these three articles with somewhat differing views that give considerably more balance to the Kurdish issue collectively.


The Kurds do have legitimate fears in becoming part of the New Iraqi Government dominated by Shiit majorities who’s alliances remain mostly to theological clerics and shria law, or even an over-represented Sunni faction that dominated them for decades.


Turkey and previously Iraqi Sunnis under Saddam had dominated the Kurds for years because of a fear that Kurds would revolt and form an independent Kurdistan. Everyone should know by now the Iraqi Kurds in the north of Iraq have every reason to be concerned about the formation of any new Iraqi government and their future position in it. Turkey is becoming wiser toward the Kurds desire for fair representation and equality for their people. This is a lesson other ethnic or religious sects of Iraq should not take lightly.


In fact the wise in Iraq could and should learn from the Kurds in that they are much farther advanced in democratic principles than any group inside of Iraq today. The Kurdish areas in the North prospered because of the no-fly zones maintained by the British and Americans protecting the Kurds from Saddam. They progressed independently with Democratic ideals far exceeding those of Turkey and especially Iraq under Saddam’s tyrannical control. They prospered more than any other ethnic or religious sect under Saddam including most of his own loyalist.


It is most unfortunate that the UN encouraged the term “occupation” as some quasi legalistic term that gave the Coalition partners who over threw Saddam’s regime control of Iraqi assets for the re-construction of Iraq once under the control of Saddam’s “oil for palaces and weapons of death” programs. They had passed instead useless and left unenforced resolution after resolution for years.


It is also most unfortunate that this despicable world body (the UN) would do NOTHING but bloviate about Saddam’s atrocities passing resolution after resolution while having no intention of enforcing them and thus prolonging the agony of most Iraqi’s. THey mostly had passed and were left mostly unenforced for the beneficiaries of Saddam’s regime such as China, Russia, France and Germany, along side several Arab countries not on the UN Security Council who capitalized from these programs and Saddam's kickback schemes. (the mother of all scandals)


It is even more unfortunate that these powerbrokers on the UN Security Council (in particular France. Russia. China and Germany) are still more interested in belittling the “liberation” of Iraq, than in Iraq’s real future. The only way these despicable miscreants could be depended upon is through the restrictive language in this NEW resolution handing sovereignty back to Iraqi’s and end the nefarious quasi legalistic term “OCCUPATION”.


This is all the US could get from this despicable cabal on the UN Security Council with its final language. This is NOT what was asked for by the Coalition or the US.


This was acceptable to the US only after consulting with Iraq’s newest transitional Government appointee's and obtaining assurances Iraq would adhere to the TAL (transitional administrative law) and until it was replaced by a constitution written by a New and Elected Government for Iraq scheduled to take place Jan. 2005. The US and the Coalition trust these conditions will be kept by Iraq’s newest transitional government based on those assurances given, with out specifically being spelled out in this Newest UN resolution. This new resolution was necessary for IRAQ to have LEGAL access and control to all the assets held in banks worldwide that belong to the Iraqi people.


This new transistinal and any future United Iraq government had better pay special heed to the Kurds equality as a minority and learn from their already advanced experience with democratic freedoms for all those in its territories. That experience was gained from being free of Saddams interference. To do otherwise will doom a new and UNIFIED IRAQ wheter it is expressly written in a UN resolution or not!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

المستقبل اللبنانية


اكد القيادي في الاتحاد الوطني الكردستاني فؤاد معصوم ان ردّة الفعل الكردية ازاء قرار مجلس الامن 1546 جاءت نتيجة اتساع حالة القلق لدى الشعب الكردي بإغفال الاشارة الى قانون ادارة الدولة الموقت، واوضح ان الإغفال كان نتيجة "إهمال بعض الاطراف والحاح اطراف اخرى"، وهو امر "يلغي الضمانات للاكراد في هذا القرار، في الوقت الذي كانت هذه الضمانات موجودة قبل سقوط النظام في اجتماعات المعارضة العراقية في لندن، وكذلك في إجماع اعضاء مجلس الحكم على قانون ادارة الدولة".


وقال معصوم في مقابلة اجرتها معه "المستقبل" إن ردّ الفعل الأولي من جانب الزعامات الكردية ازاء القرار كان نتيجة "حالة القلق التي تسود الشارع الكردي والتي اتجهت صوب القيادات الكردية معتبرة اياها قد فرطت بالحقوق الاساسية للكرد".


وتابع ان "الإحباط الذي اصاب الشارع الكردي نتيجة معرفته بان اي من المنصبين الرئيسين في التشكيلة السياسية لن يكون اي منهما لكردي عراقي، ومن ثم الرسالة التي بعث بها المرجع الشيعي السيد علي السيستاني الى الامم المتحدة ليتبعها عدم توثيق الامم المتحدة لقانون ادارة الدولة كل ذلك جعل الشارع الكردي يضغط على قياداته، في طرح سؤال محدد، ما الذي تغير بالنسبة للاكراد بعد سقوط النظام؟"


وقال معصوم ان "حالة القلق هذه مشروعة من جانب الشعب الكردي، وما طلبه كان معالجة الموضوع الكردي بذات قدر الاهتمام بالشارع الشيعي او السني"، موضحا ان "الشارع الكردي يسأل قيادته هل عدم وجود مشاكل في كردستان قد قلص الاهتمام بمعالجة الموضوع الكردي؟ وكان الناس في كردستان يقولون إن إحداث المشاكل يجلب الاهتمام، بل ويؤكدون لأن الاكراد لم يقوموا بأي مشكلة، لم يحسب لهم الحساب اللازم".


ووصف معصوم رسالة الزعيمين الكرديين جلال الطالباني ومسعود البرزاني الى الرئيس الاميركي جورج بوش بانها "وقفة مع الصديق"، وقال "الاميركيون اصدقاؤنا، والتفسير الصحيح لها انها محاولة لتثبيت حقوق الاكراد في فتح القنصلية، ومنحنا حصتنا من اموال النفط والمنح التي اعتمدت طيلة السنوات الماضية بنسبة 13 في المئة لكردستان، ولكن لم تمنح هذه النسبة طيلة العام الماضي". وتابع ان "الرسالة جاءت نتيجة ضغوط هائلة على الزعامات الكردية من الشعب والاتهام بالتفريط بالحقوق. ويسألونهم: ذهبتم الى بغداد وقمتم بمحاولات لتقريب وجهات النظر، ولكن بالنتيجة خرج الاكراد من المولد بلا حمص كما يقول المثل المصري، وفي العهود السابقة لم يحصل الكردي على المنصب الاول في اي شيء، ولا بد ان يكون النائب، واستمرت هذه الحالة، ولم يحصل الاكراد على اي شيء مغاير في العهد الجديد".


وعن التشكيلة الحالية لمجلس الوزراء، ولاسيما ان نسبة الاكراد من الحزب الديموقراطي الكردستاني اكثر من الاتحاد الوطني، قال معصوم "انها لم تمنح الاكراد كامل نسبة تمثيلهم"، ولكنه اعتبر ان "الوزارة بشكل عام تضم الكثير من العناصر الجيدة". واوضح انهم لا ينظرون إلى التمثيل الحزبي للحزبين الرئيسين، وقال "نعتقد ان الوزارة لم تمثل النسبة الحقيقة للاكراد". وتابع "التشكيلة السياسية الحالية جيدة، ولا اعتقد يمكن أن تظهر تشكيلة سياسية ترضي كل الناس، هذا الأمر من المستحيلات في العمل السياسي".


وعن الاعتراضات الكردية على قرار حل الميليشيات، قال ان القرار ساوى عندما اعلنه رئيس الوزراء اياد علاوي بين البشمركة التي تأسست قبل اربعين سنة وحمت المنطقة منذ 13 سنة ولم تحصل أية مشكلة أمنية، بأخرى عمرها لا يزيد على الاشهر. وأوضح ان "للمليشيات تعريفا خاصا لا ينطبق على البشمركة المتخرجين من كليات عسكرية وكلية اركان وكلية شرطة. طيلة العقد الماضي كنا حكومة منظمة ولم تكن البشمركة مليشيا بل كانت قوات نظامية، فهل يقال الى المدارء العامين والوزراء انهم متطوعون مثل البشمركة، هذا الكلام مرفوض".


وقال القيادي الكردي "نحن لا نعترض على دمج البشمركة بتكوينات الدولة العسكرية والامنية، ولكن ليتم ذلك عندما تنظم العلاقة بين الاقليم والحكومة في بغداد وعندها يتحول هؤلاء الى قوات نظامية ضمن القوات المسلحة العراقية، شرطة او جيش او دفاع مدني".


وباعتبار معصوم يتولى حاليا رئاسة اللجنة التحضيرية للمؤتمر الوطني لاختيار اعضاء المجلس الوطني المؤقت، اشار الى ان "هناك 21 عضوا من اعضاء مجلس الحكم سيكونون معينين في البرلمان العراقي المؤقت بمن فيهم نائب المرحوم عز الدين سليم ومنهم السيد سمير الصميدعي الذي اعتبر عضوا في مجلس الحكم بعد مغادرته حقيبة الداخلية. اما الاربعة البقية من الاعضاء والذين شغلوا مقاعد في التشكيلة السياسية الجديدة فهؤلاء لن يكونوا في البرلمان الموقت".


وعن اللجنة التحضيرية للمؤتمر قال "انها مكونة من 65 عضوا 25 في المئة منهم من العنصر النسائي وان كل محافظة ستمثل بشخص واحد عدا بغداد التي سيمثلها اربعة اشخاص".


وقال انه بالاضافة الى ممثلي المحافظات الذين سيكونون 21 شخصا من ضمنهم الاربعة الذين يمثلون بغداد، هناك ايضا في اللجنة التحضيرية الاعضاء المتبقون من مجلس الحكم، اما البقية سيمثلون المنظمات المهنية وبعض الطوائف الدينية مثل الصابئة المندائيين.


واوضح معصوم ان اللجنة التحضيرية ستدعو الى عقد مؤتمر وطني في 20 تموز المقبل تحضره 1000 شخصية لاختيار 79 عضوا يمثلون بالاضافة الى 21 عضوا المتبقين من اعضاء مجلس الحكم اعضاء البرلمان العراقي الموقت الذي سيكون عدد اعضائه 100.


وردا على سؤال عما اذا كانت ستتم عملية الاختيار لـ79 عضوا غير المعينين ستكون بالاتفاق بموجب حالة من التوافق السياسي او عبر عملية الاقتراع داخل المؤتمر، قال معصوم ان "كلا الحالين مطروح، ومن المبكر القول اي طريق يمكن اختيارها. اولا سيتم اعداد نظام داخلي لعمل المؤتمر، وسنستعين بخبراء دوليين لهم الدراية الكافية بعملية ادارة المؤتمرات، وهناك الكثير من الافكار مطروحة للعمل بها، ولكن الصيغة النهائية، سيتم الاتفاق عليها داخل المؤتمر".


وفي رده على سؤال حول موقف التشكيلة السياسية بمن فيهم اعضاء البرلمان الانتقالي بعد ثلاثين حزيران اذا ما قامت القوات الاميركية باعتقال اي مواطن عراقي، اعتبر معصوم ان "تطبيق القانون سيكون من مسؤولية الحكومة العراقية، وهي الوحيدة القادرة على اعتقال اي مواطن بقرار قضائي، ولن يحصل اي تنازع في الصلاحيات، والاكيد ليس للحكومة العراقية عصا سحرية لحل المشكلة الامنية ووفقا لاتفاق، لن تظهر القوات التي تغير اسمها إلى القوات المتعددة الجنسية بما تظهر عليه اليوم في الشوارع العامة، بل سيكون عملها بالتنسيق مع الجانب العراقي".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest




وولفويتز يطالب الأكراد بالحفاظ على العراق موحدا

Jun 18, 2004

بقلم: الاتحاد

السليمانية-برادلي جراهام:

عبر بول وولفويتز نائب وزير الدفاع الاميركي الذي حلق بالطائرة العمودية فوق شمال العراق من اجل الكشف عن زياراته المتكررة لزعيمي المنطقة الكرديين، عن دعمه القوي لحماية حقوق الاقلية الكردية في البناء السياسي العراقي الجديد، لكنه ناشد الاكراد في الوقت نفسه لمقاومة الافكار الانفصالية والعمل من اجل حكومة وطنية موحدة·

وقد اكدت الاجتماعات المنفصلة التي عقدت مع الزعيمين الكرديين مسعود برزاني وجلال طالباني الاهتمام الاميركي في تشجيع الاتفاق بين العرب الشيعة، والسنة، والمجموعات الكردية لضمان بروز دولة كردية موحدة·



Wolfwotz asked Kurd leader for Iraq unity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

وولفويتز: لا بد أن يكون أكراد العراق مواطنين من الدرجة الأولى في بلدهم

Jun 19, 2004

بقلم: الشرق الأوسط

بحيرة دوكان (العراق): برادلي غراهام*

عبّر بول وولفويتز نائب وزير الدفاع الأميركي اول من امس عن دعمه القوي لحماية حقوق الاكراد في الهيكل العراقي السياسي الجديد لكنه حثهم أيضا على مقاومة النزعات الانفصالية والعمل من أجل حكومة وطنية موحَّدة.

وجاء تصريحات وولفويتز هذه بعد لقائه الزعيمين الكرديين مسعود بارزاني وجلال طالباني لتكون بمثابة تأكيد على رغبة الولايات المتحدة في تحقيق الوفاق بين العرب من شيعة وسنة والأكراد لضمان ظهور دولة ديمقراطية موحدة في العراق.

وفي بداية هذا الشهر كان بارزاني وطالباني قد هددا بعدم مشاركة حزبيهما الكرديين في المؤسسات الجديدة للدولة العراقية واحتمال الانفصال تماما عنها، وذلك لشعورهما بالانزعاج من عدم ذكر أي إشارة لقانون ادارة الدولة للمرحلة الانتقالية في قرار مجلس الأمن الدولي الذي تم تبنيه يوم 8 الشهر الحالي وأقر فيه خطة نقل السيادة للعراقيين في الثلاثين من الشهر الحالي.

ويقدم قانون ادارة الدولة المؤقت الذي اقره مجلس الحكم العراقي بالإجماع في مارس (آذار) الماضي للأكراد بعض الحماية من خلال منحهم حق النقض للدستور الدائم بعد المصادقة عليه. ويمكن تحقيق ذلك إذا اعترض ثلثا سكان أي ثلاث محافظات على الدستور وفي هذه الحالة لن يكون ممكنا تبني الدستور، وهناك ثلاث محافظات يقطنها الاكراد بالكامل. ووعد أياد علاوي رئيس الحكومة الانتقالية الأسبوع الماضي بأن تلتزم حكومته بالقانون حتى إجراء انتخابات العام المقبل. أما ما سيحدث بعد ذلك فسيكون موضعا للشك. وكشف التوتر حول هذه المسألة حجم التحديات اللاحقة بما يخص صياغة الترتيبات التي ستحقق توازنا بين التنظيمات السياسية والمجموعات الإثنية والدينية الأساسية في العراق.

وقال وولفويتز للصحافيين بعد تناول الغداء مع بارزاني في بيت الضيافة خارج مدينة أربيل «نحن الأميركيين نعتق

Link to comment
Share on other sites

اولا انا من اشد المؤيدين لنيل العراقيون كل حقوقهم وفي مقدمتهم اؤلئك اللذين عانوا من قسر الحكومات المفروضه على العراق. وانا من اشد المؤيديين للفدراليه ليس من خلال كونها مطلبا كرديا بل عراقيا اصيلا . وقد كنت من خلال بغدادي من اشد المؤيديين لقانون الدوله الانتقالي واعتبره من اكبر الانجازات التي حققها العراقييون بعد التحرير .


اسوق هذه المقدمه لاطرح تساؤل ارجوا مخلصا من احد الاخوه الاكراد اجابتي عليه.

انا شخصيا وجدت في عدم الاشاره الى هذا القانون في قرار مجلس الامن والاستعاضه عنه بادراج اهم فقراته والمتعلقه بالفدراليه والحريه الشخصيه وحقوق المراهء والحقوق الثقافيه لمكونات الشعب العراقي , وجدت في ذلك اجازا رائعا لتتويج مسيره الشعب الراقي نحو الانعتاق والحريه. لقد كان هذا في راي انتصارا حقيقيا لكل العراقيين واولهم الكرد حيث تحولت تلك الانجازات من كونها قرارا محليا منقوص الشرعيه الى قرارا دوليا كامل الشرعيه.


انا لم اجد تفسيرا لهذه الحمله ضد الشيعه من قبل بعض المثقفين الكرد وخصوصا على المرجعيه التي تحملت الاذى الشديد وقاومت الاتجاهات العنصريه لدعاه الفكر التعصبي القومي عندما كان الاكراد بدون معين. فلو كانت المرجعيه تتخذ من نقص الشرعيه "كلمه حق يراد بها باطل" كما يقول احد الاخوه الكرد, فقد كان الاحرى ان يكون الفيتو الشيعي على الحقوق الاساسيه للعراقيين واولها الفدراليه.

ان ترحيب البيت الشيعي بقانون مجلس الامن كان يجب ان يكون لبنه اخرى تضاف الى التلاحم المصيري بين ابناء الشعب الواحد عربا وكردا.


اما اذا كان المقصود هو فقره الفيتو , فان الكرد قبل غيرهم يعرفون ان من يقرر الفيتو هو القوى الفاعله على الارض وطالما بقيت لحمه ابناء الشعب الراقي فانه لن تكون هناك فرصه لمن يلعب بنار التعصب و الطغيان كائنا ما كان. قوميا او دينيا او مذهبيا


اما ما طرحه بعض اؤلئك المثقفين من ان الكرد لم يعودوا يقبلوا بموقع النائب. فهو امر اكثر غرابه. الرئيس ورئيس الوزراء تم التصويت عليهم في مجلس الحكم وباجماع الاخوه الكرد على ان يكون رئيس المجلس الوطني من الكرد. فمالذي حصل كي ينتبه الاخوه قيادي الاحزاب الكريه ان التوزيع غير مقبول؟ ولماذا يلام الشيعه حول ذلك وهم الاغلبيه المطلقه ولم يحصلو الا على وزارات محدوده. اخذين بالاعتبار ان السيد علاوي لايمثل الشيعه كطائفه ولا كون الشيخ الياور ممثلا للسنه كطائفه كما هو حال الدكتور معصوم كمرشح للكرد,


ارجوا مخلصا ان لايفهم من كلامي اعلاه انتقاصا فليس احب الي من اخوه جمعتني بالكرد وصداقه لن انساها..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest



>Israeli intelligence and military operatives are now quietly at work in

>Kurdistan, providing training for Kurdish commando units and, most

>important in IsraelOs view, running covert operations inside Kurdish areas

>of Iran and Syria. Israel feels particularly threatened by Iran, whose

>position in the region has been strengthened by the war. The Israeli

>operatives include members of the Mossad, IsraelOs clandestine

>foreign-intelligence service, who work undercover in Kurdistan as

>businessmen and, in some cases, do not carry Israeli passports.



Example of the anti Iraq freedom propagada..

If Moosad is working with Kurds in this way.. They their Turks Allies should be worried too.

Can the writer explains how this would goes under the great strong stratigic relations between Turky and Isreal.?

The other thing , if this true, why now.. Kurdistan was free over the last fourteen years.. It might be much worth helpping it's forces when Saddam was threatining it..

Another nonsense and stupid propaganda!!


This is just another example of messages that these anti Iraq freedom are sending to trigger all the fears of Syria and Iran to help them destabilize IRaq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest_Mutergem

Translati\ng the comment above


يتناول الكاتب ما جاء في ادعاء ورد في احدى الصحف الامريكيه غير الرءيسيه "نيويوركر" والذي تناقلته اغلب وسائل الاعلام والمؤشر رابطه اعلاه.


ان هذا هو نموذج اخر لدعايه اؤلئك المعاديين لحريه العراق.. فلو كان هذا صحيحا فانه من باب اولى ان تخشى تركيا وهي الحليف الاستراتيجي الاول في المنطقه لاسرائيل..

المنطقه الكرديه تنعم بحريتها منذ اكثر اربعه عشر سنه وكان الاولى ان تقدم مثل هذه المساعده خلالها عنما كان صدام يهدد الكرد.

الغايه هي اثاره مشاعر الخوف لدى سوريه وايران كي تساهما في زعزعه استقرار العراق..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

In arabic



A shia scholar feel shame to all what had happened by Arabs and parsians and Turks to the kurds..


اني اكتب وفي داخلي الشعب الكردي المظلوم فقط , وحتى اكون صريحا اكثر , فانا لااكن الاحترام لبعض قادتهم , بل اجد منهم من ساهم في ماساة الشعب الكردي !!!


الشعب الكردي الان محتل من قبل كل من الشعب العربي والفارسي والتركي , نعم هده الحقيقة المرة والمخزية , والتي يتهرب من قولها الكثير. والاشد خزيا وعارا ان الكرد محتلون من قبل شعوب جميعها اسلامية بحكومات لااسلامية ولاانسانية .

ولكوني منتميا لمدرسة امام الحق علي بن ابي طالب عليه السلام فلا اجد غضاضة من قول الحق ولو كره الظالمون .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Create New...