Is Kurdish Rebellion a Left Wing Cause?

There is a paradox in left wing ideology. The left wing often supports underdogs in an effort to ensure equality. Yet the underdog always carries baggage that can be directly opposed to left wing philosophies. As a progressive person, should I support the supressed, knowing that I might be tangentially supporting ideals that I do not agree with? Or should I reject the actor, risking the continuation of suppression?

It is a conundrum I have called the Straight Outta Compton paradox. Should I support the music of N.W.A because it gave supressed Black Americans a way to transcend the structural violence in their society? Or should I condemn N.W.A for its physical abuse to women;[1] its racial abuse to Korean Americans;[2] and its Trans and homophobic messages?[3] I would struggle to answer these questions. Yet, this paradox is applicable to another left wing darling, the Kurdish militias in the Iraqi-Syrian Conflict. The roots of a new State are being planted by the Iraqi Kurds. The once abused underdogs of the region are gaining power, but at a cost.

A quick history of the Kurds will contextualise both their current actions and the left wing’s willingness to overlook their flaws. In this essay, I shall often use the word ‘Kurds’ to refer specifically to the Iraqi Kurdish political body, not the greater diaspora.

The Kurds have throughout the past decade proved themselves to be a stable, organised and reliable actor. However, they have not always been in this position. The 1920 Treaty of Sèvres allowed a referendum on the establishment of a Kurdish State.[4] This fell apart under Kemal Ataturk who rejected the notion that Kurds where a distinct ethnic group. Instead he claimed that “Turkey [was] a social entity united in race, religion and culture.”[5] Ataturk then lobbied Iraq and Iran to not recognise the Kurdish nation, which came to fruition in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne which established the current Turkish-Iraqi boarders. This formed a Kurdish diaspora across Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria.

Under Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi Kurds where often used as a political scapegoat for all the country’s woes. The US also played a role in facilitating the suppression of the Kurds. In the 1974-1975 Iraqi-Kurdish War, Kissinger funded the Kurdish rebels against the Hussein regime. Once the Ford administration coerced the Iraqi regime into line they abandoned the Kurds, as Kissinger said to a staffer at the time: “Promise them [the Kurds] anything, give them what they get, and fuck them if they can’t take a joke.”[6]

After 1975, a systematic ethnic cleansing of the Kurds by the Baathist regime commenced, with few international repercussions. The ethnic cleansing reached its climax in 1988 when an estimated 5000 Kurds were killed by a mix of mustard gas and nerve agents.[7] The First Gulf War saw Hussein’s power diminished to the point where the Kurds could operate an autonomous region. Yet turmoil for the Kurds only continued with a four year civil war between the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), led by Massoud Barzani, and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), led by Jalal Talabani. The popular saying that the ‘Kurds have no friends but the mountains’ can be understood in the context of this long history of violence. However, in 1998, the tides began to turn, and the two factions agreed to share power. Thus the modern Kurdish Iraqi government was formed. By 2003 the Iraqi Kurds developed an organized military – the Peshmerga – under the control of Massoud Barzani who shared power with Jalal Talabani, outlined in a Constitution. This made the Iraqi Kurds attractive to the war mobilising Western world.

In 2003 the Kurds emerged as the perfect friend for the invading forces in Iraq. When Ankara rejected to join the US coalition there was an opening for the Kurds to align themselves with the West and fight the sectarian al-Qaida in Iraq. The Peshmerga also proved itself a useful fighting force, as they claimed to have played a key role in capturing Saddam Hussein and finding Osama bin Laden.[8] During this time, the Iraqi Kurds acknowledged that they were willing to operate as an autonomous region in Iraq. But this willingness was in the context of the Iraq War and it would be a mistake to presume that the Kurds were content with this status. Emma Sky, a political advisor to the US, spent time with the Iraqi Kurds and learnt of Kamal Kirkuki’s – a high ranking member of the KDP – belief that after the Second Gulf War “Iraq [had] been divided into three regions: Kurdistan, Sunnistan and Shiastan.”[9] The KDP still believed that an independent Kurdish State “is the only way. We [the Sunni, Shia and Kurds] cannot live together.”[10] A Kurdish nation was the uniting goal of the Iraqi Kurdish parliament. The roots of this State would be nurtured in the following years.

***

Compared to ISIS, Assad, Al-Nusra and even some elements of the Free Syrian Army, the Iraqi Kurds appear to be the perfect ally for a moderate internal military offensive in the region. Left wing theorists, both big and small, support the Kurds. When Noam Chomsky was asked in 2011 if there would ever be a Kurdish nation he said: “I think we can look forward to such a development.”[11] Slavoj Žižek claimed that a Kurdish state in the Middle East: “would be a bridge between peoples.”[12] Within Australia, the Socialist Alliance demand a “referendum on self-determination be held in Iraqi Kurdistan.”[13] Such sentiment has made it into main stream political thought, as Washington in 2014 claimed the Kurds to be a “reliable and stable partner of the US”;[14] and that arming the Kurds would help “avoid future fragmentation… along sectarian and ethnic lines.”[15] These claims where backed up by Germany, France, Britain, Italy and the Czech Republic, all providing military aid to the Kurds.[16]

Western and left-wing support is based on some rational foundations. The Syrian Kurds of Rojava are promoting secular, socialist, democratic and progressive policy. The Peshmerga are acting as a formidable force against ISIS, in taking back Sinjar Mountain – an important trade route – and attacking Mosul. The relative stability of Ebril is promising, and may even have the honour of hosting slowly rusting US planes in the not too distant future.[17] But most importantly the continuous failure to prevent the reoccurring atrocities against one of the largest diasporas in the world has seen the Iraqi Kurds become a black spot on the pages of history, a sorry chapter of inaction, failure and betrayal by advocates of equality. Yet past failures to protect a minority group from harm does not exclude said group from perpetrating harm to others.

Before I continue, I want to reiterate that the actions of some in the Iraqi Kurdish military are not emblematic of the Kurdish diaspora, nor does the government of Iraqi Kurdistan represent the goals of other Kurdish groups. Too often the PKK is conflated with the Iraqi Kurds, and too often the young Syrian Kurds of Rojava are conflated with the Peshmerga. The Iraqi Kurds while occasionally allying with the Syrian Kurds are not the same. The Iraqi Kurds are increasingly being run by a “Putin-style illiberal democracy.”[18] The leader of the KDP, Massoud Barzani, in 2015 purged political adversaries from key ministerial positions including The Ministry of Peshmerga, only to replace them with loyal KDP members.[19] Iraqi Kurdistan was also due for an election in 2013, but Barzani extended his term limit for two years.[20] Even Bush era intellectuals – who rarely criticise there few allies in the region – talk of Iraqi Kurdistan institutions as follows:

“Political control runs deep. In the case of a victim learning from his tormentor, both parties [KDP and PUK] have replicated Baath Party mechanisms of control. […] The intelligence apparatus runs deep, and torture is common. […] Those who refuse to be co-opted or at least be silent face the Kurdish security services. In October 2006, the KDP’s secret service abducted Austrian-Kurdish journalist Kamal Said Qadir after he wrote articles questioning corruption within the ruling Barzani clan… After a fifteen-minute trial, the KDP judge sentenced Kamal to thirty years in prison—a sentence commuted only after a campaign by international NGOs and condemnation from the State Department.

As such, Iraqi Kurdistan is far from a beacon of democracy, and far from the freedom and liberty most left wing thinkers demand from other States – although Kurdistan is, admittedly, a long way from being a state and remains constrained by the protracted civil war in the region. The Iraqi-Syrian conflict has also led to heightening ethnic tensions within the Kurdish regions.

Between 2014 and 2015, ISIS lost 18% of the land they controlled, the Kurds gained 186% in the same time.[21] The Iraqi Kurds, who have for generations been persecuted and supressed by the ruling Arab population, now hold large portions of Iraq. Within this take over, HRW has uncovered instances in which Kurdish forces prohibited Arabs displaced by fighting “from returning to their homes.” HRW also reported that Kurdish checkpoints will prohibit Arabs from passing unless they have “Kurdish sponsors.” Arab homes have been marked “Reserved for Kurds” or “Belongs to the Party” referring to the KDP. Neglected and cordoned off Arab villages suffer from a lack of water, wood, electricity, and the people are unable to seek work outside the restricted areas.[22] This may seem trivial next to the brutality of ISIS, and Assad, but very few left wing thinkers are supporting either of those groups. The budding roots of the Kurdish State are now intertwined with inequality and ethnic favouritism. This could be the initial days of another Ethnocracy in the Middle East.

Iraqi Kurdistan’s ruling parties know that their goal for a Kurdish State is now within reach. Foreign Minister, Bakir said that Kurdish sovereignty is “the right of a people, the right of a nation that history has betrayed.”[23] Barzani has said the time has come for a referendum on the statehood of Kurdistan.[24] This comes at a time where the Kurdish people are protesting against the corruption and economic failings of their government.[25] The people of Iraqi Kurdistan are disenfranchised, and the ruling parties are pushing the nationalistic cause to avoid facing the questions of corruption and exploitation. The support for an increasingly militaristic and nationalistic government is in opposition to many left wing ideals. Nor is another ethno-sectarian nation State in the Middles East going to ensure long-term stability, devoid of the current desire.

Should left wing thinkers be so vocally supportive of a corrupt, exploitative, ethno-sectarian and invasive government? Or should historical repression of the Kurdish people afford them different standards when the possibility of self-determination is in reach? Thus the Straight Outta Compton paradox. As the roots of the new Kurdish State strengthen, left wing theorists must become more critical. Not only of the actors they support, but so too with the contradictions that occur when advocating equality.