Washington Kurdish Institute
By: Yousif Ismael & Giulia Anderson March 9, 2021
March is remembered as a bloody month in Kurdish history, as for many years, the Kurdish population suffered from tremendous atrocities. An overview of brutalities which occurred, in time, during the month of March and analysis how much of what happened could have been avoided with independence.
March in History
The March Manifesto of 1970, put an end to the war with Iraq, but it did, however, become a pre-condition of the 1974-1975, 2nd Iraqi-Kurdish War – a detour from the Iran-Iraq dispute over the Shatt al-Arab river. This second conflict with Iraq had numerous consequences for the Kurds, as Kurds were resettled, forcibly displaced, many families disappeared, and many others were banished from their lands. These events were a way for the Iraqi government to destabilize the Kurdish community and eradicate them from their social identity, also known as kurdayetî, just because they felt threatened by the power the community had domestically and internationally (e.g., at the time, Iran saw the Kurds as instruments, as a way to weaken Iraq).
Moreover, March is also the anniversary of the brutal al-Anfal campaigns: eight genocidal missions Saddam Hussein and his cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid, portrayed against the Kurds in Iraq in 1988-1989. Saddam, as all leaders in Iraq, tried to negotiate with the Kurds, but fiercely shifted away from “friendship” and turned against them, appointing al-Majid (Chemical Ali) as secretary of the northern bureau and responsible for the region’s stability and security. However, Iraqi Kurdistan was entirely inhabited by the Kurdish community, which consequently became the threat and the enemy to destroy. Initially, al-Majid decided to recognize the northern region of Iraq as a “prohibited” zone, forcing people to leave the homes, roots, and hide in the mountains to find shelter. However, for Saddam and al-Majid this was not enough, in fact, as Samantha Power wrote in her book ‘A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide’, they believed that “the best way to stamp out rebellion was to stamp out Kurdish life” – after this, the al-Anfals (spoils of war) started in mid-February and all through March. The Jafati Valley was al-Majid’s first target: he had the Iraqi military surround the valley, bomb it, and oblige people to surrender. During this first campaign, which lasted a total of three weeks, the city of Halabja was chemically bombed with cyanide and mustard gas on March 16th, killing thousands of Kurds and marking a turning point on Iraq’s – at this point – hatred, towards the Kurds. Halabja is considered the most tragic attack on the Kurdish community and the deadliest chemical attack on civilians in history. What happened in Halabja still has consequences today, people suffer from the chemicals used during the attack both physically and morally because something as harsh is not hard to forget.
To complete the overview on the al-Anfals, the second attacks were carried out in the Qaradagh area; the third in the Germian lands; the fourth in Kirkuk and Koyeh; the fifth, sixth, and seventh in the Qaradagh area and Erbil; whereas the last stage of the campaign again in the Germian lands.
The last occurrence worth mentioning is the Newroz celebration, the beginning of the new year for Kurdish culture. This festivity, which also celebrates light, goodness, and purity, is usually held on March 21st. Notwithstanding the importance of this festivity, Kurdish people have often been banned from celebrating their new year – still today. For example, Turkish authorities settled at the border with Syria do not recognize Newroz as a public holiday, and so banned any sort of celebration or parade – most importantly, the United Nations considers Newroz as an International Day. Moreover, in the past years, the Turkish government started considering this celebration as an act of separatism and a way to express a non-Turkish culture, which, considering Turkey’s recent domestic developments, is not allowed. Also in Syria, Kurds in Afrin have been banned from celebrating it, and this recalls when in both 1986 and 2005, the regime opened fire on multiple Kurds simply enjoying their new year’s.
Last, these above-mentioned events are not the only brutalities the Kurds went through historically in March. One may recall the Sheikh Said rebellion and its consequences in 1880-1925, the Dersim Massacre of 1937 in Turkey against the Kurds, the fall of the Republic of Mahabad in the late 1940s, and the execution of Qazi Mohammed, an Iranian Kurd, in 1947 – all of which occurred in March.
But, could all of this be avoided if Kurds were given independence?
Independence provides citizens protection
In recent history, it is proven that having a state of your own, decreases mass killings by an outsider and at best prevents the changes of demography and occupation of lands. For example, when the former Dictator Saddam Hussien invaded the State of Kuwait in 1990, more than 900 innocents were killed including civilians and military members. However, the international community soon allied under the leadership of the US and liberated the country to the last inch of it, such that crippling sanctions were imposed on Iraq for more than 13 years.
To further this idea, many genocides and massacres, which occurred around the world, happened against stateless groups. The most brutal being the Holocaust, followed by many others like the Kurdish Anfal and Halabja campaigns mentioned above, the Kosovo War and consequent Srebrenica genocide, the Armenian genocide, the South Sudanese Conflict, the Sri Lankan War on the Tamill, the Rohingya genocide, and more. All of these groups did not have a State of their own. In fact, the independence of Israel, Kosovo, Armenia, and South Sudan, have prevented further genocides simply due to the fact they now enjoy a recognized entity at the United Nations (UN) which translates into support by the international community and protection.
Indeed, some massacres and genocides have occurred internally and during civil wars, like the Rwandan genocide, and the Syrian and Lebanese civil wars, but these internal divisions are also ethnic, sectarian, and religious. As a result of having an independent state, the international community kept the drawn borders and intervened to restore what they have on record as an “independent state.” Today, Syria is divided into three de facto states, yet the UN and the international community remain committed to the same borders drawn a century ago, even though history shows they have not worked. In Lebanon, after decades of civil war, the country’s borders did not change either, and similar cases apply to Iraq, Yemen, and other states.
If the Kurds in any part of greater Kurdistan, had an independent state, they would avoid the ethnic cleansings that remain in place by their enemies.
Self-determination is irrelevant to governing systems
Oftentimes, the anti-Kurdish voices use arguments about Iraqi Kurds “not being ready” for independence since the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) has mismanaged the region. Further, there is also the rhetoric on “the Kurds are divided” in too many political parties. In fairness, yes, there are serious issues that need to be addressed, and the KRG should impose long-due reforms in all sectors. It is also true that the Iraqi Kurds are so divided that in some cases their enemies take advantage of it. However, both issues are irrelevant to self-determination and independence. For example, almost every country in the world suffers bad governing. These governments, in many cases, do not represent the will of the people, and if they do, then it is toward a certain group or party. Moreover, almost all states around the world suffer deep political division, including the United States. Both bad governing and political division, not only do not justify the occupations and ethnic cleansings but also do not make sense, given that almost every country became independent in chaos and in much worse shape than the KRG or the Kurdish division. The governments of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey have decades of mismanagement history, and Turks, Persians, and Arabs are as much divided as the Kurds, if not more. Thus, if bad governing and political division is a measure for establishing a state, then most of the countries around the world should not exist. That said, good governance would give more legitimacy and support for establishing a state.
It is easy to criticize a nation that has been divided into four states for more than a century and facing all sorts of repressions. However, the bitter reality is that Kurds are landlocked among four states with four Kurdish populations. This geographical configuration has made Kurdish parties depend on and consider regional equilibriums, and so have them accept aid from governments that opposed the Kurds. It is more realistic to convey to the Kurds for these above-mentioned reasons and in order to achieve self-determination, they need to work much harder than other nations that hold their own state. Setting a good example of governing, and somewhat unity, would indeed bring more support and attention to the cause. So far, both support by the international community, mainly by the US, for Iraqi and Syrian Kurds have been only via military cooperation. While the US supports the entity of the KRG within a unified Iraq, it lacked any support for Kurdistan’s independence.
The case of the Iraqi Kurds
In September of 2017, the Iraqi Kurds held an Independence Referendum that had two goals: pressuring Baghdad to implement the constitution concerning Kurdish rights and declare independence from Iraq. Both aims of the referendum have been repeated by Kurdish officials before and after the referendum. However, the aftermath of the referendum resulted in the loss of half of the Kurdistani lands outside of the KRG official borders. Though the process gained more than 93% in-favor votes, the Kurds paid a heavy price after the international community, headed by the US, opposed the process while the governments of Iraq, Iran, and Turkey launched economic and military attacks on the Kurds. After more than three years, the Kurds have yet to recover. On the contrary, the central government, and mainly the Iranian-backed parties, have further imposed economic restrictions on the Kurdistan region.
The referendum results remain frozen, but current Iraq is in even worse shape than 2017. For instance, the Iranian-backed militias continue to target the US-led coalition, the economy is in a dire situation, the political division is at the highest rate since the establishment of the country, even if the government has high support, and one Iraq policy remains in place with the US and the rest of the world.
The Iraqi Kurds should not give up on independence, neither in the short nor in the long term, since there is no guarantee that another genocide and massacre will not happen against them in the future. The Iraqi Kurds should simultaneously build an institution-based government before independence and present a successful working-experiment to the world; unlike the establishment of the newest state of South Sudan, which cannot be considered as a good example. The Kurdistan region is already unique in comparison to the rest of the regional powers going towards the West. It has proven that it is not a threat for its neighboring countries and its ideology is much more developed than the rest of the country, especially toward minority rights, such as Christians and non-Kurds. The KRG should lay out a plan for a future state where a decentralized system is implemented that ensures the rights of the minorities with the UN’s help and recognition. Undoubtedly, Western support is much needed for the Kurds, but building their state is as much as important, if not more. March is a reminder of the tragedies the Kurds were forced to face, but it should also be a wake-up call for the international community, and for the Kurdish parties: the case of independence is a natural right and it should be supported as did for the 195 countries around the world.
Disclaimer: The views, opinions, and positions expressed by authors and contributors do not necessary reflect those of the WKI.