 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 25 February - 3 March 1999 Issue No. 418 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
 |
 |
|
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 25 February - 3 March 1999 Issue No. 418
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
|
|
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Travel Living Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Ocalan's abduction
By Mohamed Sid-Ahmed
The Arabs have every right to insist on maintaining the integrity of their states, especially with the threat of dismemberment now looming over a number of these states, notably Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Sudan, and eventually even Algeria. But with the Kurdish problem reaching its most critical phase yet following the abduction of Abdullah Ocalan, the Arabs cannot disregard the aspiration of the Kurds for self-determination, especially when the Arabs are pressing strongly for Palestinian self-determination. How to reconcile these two legitimate yet contradictory demands?
Because the Kurds are present in many Middle Eastern countries -- Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Iran -- the Kurdish problem is a complex one. The Kurdish communities do not constitute a cohesive whole. Indeed, they are often at odds with one another, even within the same state, as is the case in Iraq, where Barazani's Kurdish Democratic Party is in open conflict with Talbani's Kurdish national Union in the north. And, from one country to another, they adopt different strategies towards the central government. Thus the Kurdish Workers Party in Turkey (PKK), headed by Ocalan, uses violent means to resist the policy of ethnic cleansing practiced by successive Turkish governments in wide areas of Turkish Kurdistan, while Kurdish movements in other Middle Eastern states favour political opposition whenever possible.
But the long-simmering divisions in Kurdish ranks were swept away by a sense of outrage at Ocalan's abduction. The outburst of violence protesting the Kurdish leader's capture attests to the deep feelings of frustration and anger among all the Kurds, not only those in the Middle East but even among the 850,000 Kurds living in various European cities. It is also an ominous reminder that the Kurdish problem is a deep-rooted one that will not go away any time soon, particularly not if, as is likely, Ocalan is executed. On the contrary, what would be perceived as his martyrdom will inflame Kurdish resentments and add new impetus to their liberation movement. That is why the Arabs should develop a better understanding of the Kurdish problem which, like it or not, is closely linked to many issues affecting them directly, particularly at this critical juncture.
There is, first of all, the current deadlock on the Palestinian-Israeli track. Although he has been forced to call early elections, Netanyahu is still in a position to implement his policy of opposing the establishment of a Palestinian state, even one stripped of most of the prerogatives of sovereignty. More dangerous still, the death of King Hussein, which has left the door open to a power struggle in the Hashemite court, could tempt prominent members of Netanyahu's government, notably his ultra-Hawkish foreign minister Ariel Sharon, to revive the latter's old proposal to establish the Palestinian state in Jordan. The threat is imminent for, if this scenario is to succeed, Israel must act swiftly before powerful international quarters have a chance to stabilise the new Jordanian regime.
On the other hand, there is every reason to believe that Clinton would support an Israeli government not headed by Netanyahu. This need not be a Labour government headed by Ehud Barak now that former chief of staff Amnon Shahak has formed a centrist party composed mainly of relatively dovish Likud ministers who have defected from Netanyahu's coalition, such as Isthak Mordechai and Dan Meridor. Clinton's support for Netanyahu's opponents could be a further incentive for Sharon and his cronies to push ahead with the Palestine-in-Jordan option.
I believe the possibility of this scenario cannot be discounted merely because such radical shifts in direction are unlikely in the context of a formal peace process in which the parties are supposed to be bound by contractual obligations. Anyone who has followed the television coverage of the degrading treatment Ocalan has received at the hands of his captors cannot fail to realise that statements and reassurances by top politicians are not the only factor reflecting how events unfold in the real world. No less important than the world of political institutions and respect for legal conduct is the world of security and information agencies or, for that matter, the underworld of arms deals, drugs and illegal financial transactions, all of which can produce surprisingly unexpected outcomes.
Arafat is still threatening to unilaterally proclaim a Palestinian state on 4 May. However legitimate such a proclamation would be, it could be used by Israeli politicians of the Sharon school to implement their project of making Jordan, not the West Bank, the site of a Palestinian state. In a bid to forestall moves in that direction, Arafat has called for a confederation between Jordan and Palestine. Fearing that the Netanyahu government could interpret his call as directed against Israel, the Clinton administration has stressed the need to make any such arrangement a tripartite one, including Israel.
All this manoeuvring highlights the need for principled engagements towards the rights of the protagonists on the basic issues of self-determination and sovereignty. The Kurds cannot be kept out of such engagements. Nor can the Arab parties adopt a policy of double standards towards the Kurds, depriving them of the very rights they are demanding for the Palestinians if the accusations they level at the West on pursuing policies of double standards are to be consistent and credible.
Nor is the Palestinian issue the only potential flashpoint threatening the stability of the Middle East. An equally destabilising factor is the Iraqi imbroglio and America's openly declared objective of toppling Saddam Hussein. To implement its objective, Washington is banking on the cooperation of various opposition forces in Iraq, including the Kurds and the Shi'a. But such a strategy exposes Iraq to the possibility of dismemberment and collapse, an issue of contention between Washington on the one hand and all the Arab regimes on the other, which rightly dread the domino effect a meltdown in Iraq could produce.
A new ingredient that seems to have recently been added to the already volatile brew of Middle Eastern politics is the sharp turn in Israel's attitude towards the Kurds. Traditionally, Israel considered the Kurds its natural allies in its confrontation with the Arabs, on the grounds that they are discriminated against in the various countries in which they live. Thus it has always wooed many Kurdish movements, including the PKK. But if reports of Israel's involvement in the abduction of Ocalan prove to be true, this would mean that Israel is now giving priority to supporting Turkey against the PKK rather than continuing to sympathise with Kurdish aspirations.
These various factors make it clear that the Arab parties can no longer allow their attitude towards the Kurdish problem to remain shrouded in ambiguity. However fundamental their commitment towards Arab unity and the integrity of the Arab states, a just and, dare we say it, imaginative, solution of the Kurdish problem has become absolutely imperative if the Middle East is not to sink still further into turmoil and chaos.
