05.09.1996

US calls the tune

Once again ‘new world order’ cruise missiles have hurtled through the skies of Iraq as happened during the 1991 Gulf War. This is not the first time since then - there was a wave of similar attacks by the USA during 1993. Every so often the US administration wakes up to the awkward realisation that Saddam Hussein is still in power in Baghdad. Perhaps the USA wants him there in preference to a pro-Iranian or leftist regime, but Saddam does not fit well into the Brave New World of total American dominance, and sometimes he decides to remind them of his continued existence.

The Middle East is full of unresolved crises and trouble spots, as well as oil wealth. This is why the USA likes to shake a mailed fist from time to time and also why its dominance of the world is shaky. One of the unresolved crises is in Kurdistan.

The Kurds live as a fairly compact ethnic group which happens to overlap the frontiers of several Middle Eastern states - Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. Their very existence, often in unstable and disputed border regions, creates political problems for all these states. For the purposes of the ‘new world order’, the Iraqi Kurds, many of whom have fought Saddam, have some rights to autonomy. Turkish Kurds, many of whom fight a Turkish army affiliated to Nato, do not.

The Kurds are not all of the same mind in the region. Some are more or less loyal to the central governments of the countries they inhabit. Others are in rebellion but are beholden to another country, while others are in rebellion on their own account. Saddam Hussein has exploited Kurdish divisions with some skill. He sent troops to support the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) of Massoud Barzani against their rivals in the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), led by Jalal Talabani.

Much of Iraqi Kurdistan is in a so-called protected zone, declared by the USA and its allies after the Gulf War. The Kurds there have been able to exercise some autonomy, but they have been divided politically to the point of open warfare, and powerful neighbours, not just the Iraqis, have sent troops into the area. Turkey has sent troops across the border into Iraqi Kurdistan on several occasions in recent years to attack the bases of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). PKK guerrillas have been fighting Turkey for years. Needless to say, the USA turns a blind eye to this kind of incursion. Yet if the Turkish army can do it, why not the others?

In July the Iranians attacked across the border into northern Iraq to destroy bases belonging to Iranian Kurdish guerrillas. Nobody did anything about this incursion, not even the USA, which is so hostile to Iran. Again, this might have given someone ideas.

Finally, Saddam sent his troops in, no doubt mindful of the examples mentioned above. Only now does the USA, with its dutiful allies in tow, stir itself from inaction or tacit acceptance of invasions, by launching missiles at Iraq.

Unanimity has not been guaranteed. World reaction to the USA’s action has varied. The British government has dutifully fallen in behind its transatlantic master. This has long been the case - no surprise there. In contrast, the French have been reluctant, the Russians and Chinese hostile. This has nothing to do with ideology: they know the USA is pulling a fast one and are not as willing as Britain to give the US a free rein in asserting its hegemony. The Russian commentator who said the missile launches were an election ploy so that Bill Clinton could smooth his path back to the White House spoke a truth. It is unlikely that the USA will continue in this way much past polling day, so the Gulf War will not start up again. The problems of the region will continue however.

One lesson can be drawn: the Kurdish factions which acted as the tools of other powers have paid the price. The KDP is an Iraqi puppet now and the PUK is torn between seeking Iranian backing and trying to draw the USA and its allies into the conflict on its side. In contrast the PKK has stayed relatively free from the temptation to become someone else’s pawn.

It is clear that the KDP and the PUK are politically bankrupt. The torch of Kurdish nationalist aspirations may well be passed to the PKK, whose own brand of ‘Marxism’ has become steadily nationalistic - if not chauvinistic. The narrow nationalism of the PUK or the PKK is not enough to escape imperialism’s grip, but puppets like the KDP can never cut their strings.

Andrew MacKay