BY SEMIH IDIZ
MILLIYET- What is Kurdistan Democratic Party leader Massoud Barzani's aim by justifying those opposing Kurds? Why he can't see that while promising to create great problems for others, he's also inviting a disaster for Iraqi Kurds who have seized the opportunity of stable improvement for the first time? Could it be possible that Barzani is deprived of the ability to see the lessons given by history? If he's not, then who does he trust in? Or, did he reach a military power to turn all the balances upside down? If I had been a reasonable Kurd, I would have looked at the facts of the region and the international conjuncture and ask him these questions.
Barzani couldn't have forgotten that the `Mahabad Republic' which was established in 1946 under the Soviets Union's governance via his father who was the then Chief of General Staff, was collapsed by the Iranian Shah with the support of the US and Britain. Similarly, he also couldn't have forgotten that the self-government accepted by Baghdad for Kurds in 1974 evaporated with the agreement between Tehran and Baghdad, in spite of the so-called support provided by the US, Israel and Iran. The Kurdish leader has always said that they deserve independence, but that they're realistic about this issue. However, Barzani's remarks which can be summarized as they would put 30 million Kurdish people in Turkey into action and intervene in Diyarbakir and other cities, if Turkey intervenes in Kirkuk, show that he's living in a world of dream.
It's known that Ankara is politically sensitive about the Kirkuk issue. This situation can be seen not only in Turkey, but also in Arab countries. It's also true that a militarist disclosure is reflected by certain people in Turkey. However, both the government and the military wing said that Turkey's military intervention in Kirkuk can be possible only with the beginning of systematic massacres against Turks living there and these words are still in records. Why is Barzani adding fuel to the fire in spite of this fact and what's he expecting to gain with these threats which would worry Turkey, Iran and Syria and which are full of imaginary figures?
I believe that he's trying to keep the tension high, because actually the things aren't developing in favor of Kurds' great aspirations. I have written before that the Baker-Hamilton report became a kind of `Balfour Declaration' for Kurds. Neither this report, nor the Kirkuk report which was prepared by the International Crisis Group based in Brussels support Kurds' thesis. What's more, the oil law which was accepted with the US' pressures emphasize that the Iraqi oil belong to the Iraqi people. In this case, Barzani is preparing for playing not the role of `calming,' but the role of `complicating.' He thinks that he will be able to reach his political aims with this complication. However, as I mentioned above, his only achievement is to play for the anti-Kurdish people's hands and prepare a disaster for Iraqi Kurds. I think it can't be viewed as `leadership'.