Dec 31, 2002 Op Eds

Dec 31, 2002 Opinion Editorials http://www.aljazeerah.info

“We (in Iraq) do not incite against North Korea. It’s not our business to cast doubt on North Korea’s motives or America’s pretexts,” leader writer Sami Mahdi declares in the Baghdad daily Al-Thawra. “We advocate dialogue and the peaceful resolution of world problems in compliance with the UN Charter, international law and the principles of justice and fairness.
“Our intention then is not to incite against North Korea because this is not in our character. But no independent person can avoid drawing parallels between the case of Iraq and that of Korea and assessing the US administration’s approach towards each of the two cases.”
Mahdi writes that North Korea has publicly announced it would reopen a reactor that can produce weapons-grade plutonium, restart its nuclear weapons development program, and ordered International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to leave.
Logically, Mehdi writes, this means North Korea is in a position “to develop other weapons of mass destruction if it didn’t already have them.”
“In contrast, Iraq has done the opposite, agreeing to disarm as far back as 1991. In effect, it disarmed and its banned weapons were destroyed. Iraq is free of proscribed weapons and the arms inspectors are here to verify just that. Iraq did not remove the seals, cameras and monitoring devices that were put in place for inspection purposes; it was American and British warplanes that bombed those sites and put the monitoring devices out of action when America and Britain attacked Iraq in December 1998. Iraq did not expel the arms inspectors it was America that ordered them out on the eve of the said aggression.
“Iraq, despite being ceaselessly aggressed, harassed and accused, did not revoke its acceptance of UN Security Council Resolution 687 or exploit the inspectors’ absence to build new (arms) programs notwithstanding the Security Council’s failure to uphold its own commitments (to lift sanctions).
“Isn’t Iraq’s case the opposite of the case of North Korea?” Mahdi asks. “But look at the way America addresses the two situations how it threatens Iraq, which is free of weapons of mass destruction, with invasion and occupation; how, based on assumptions and probabilities of its own making, it tries to find something against Iraq that Iraq simply doesn’t have.
“Contrast that approach with the US administration’s eagerness to solve the crisis with North Korea by diplomatic means, urging other nations to broker a solution, offering economic inducements (to Pyongyang) and prodding the IAEA to bring the case of North Korean violations before the UN Security Council. The most that Washington has threatened with is economic pressure and possibly stopping cash-strapped North Korea’s missile exports by intercepting them at sea.
“When the Bush administration’s high fliers are asked about the reason for such bigotry in dealing with the two cases of Iraq and North Korea, they answer: ‘North Korea has not defied the international community.’ If so, whom did Pyongyang defy?” he wonders. “Isn’t it violating the so-called 1994 Agreed Framework signed in Geneva, in which it undertook to freeze its nuclear weapons program (in return for the US-led construction of two modern, light-water reactors and 500,000 tons of fuel a year until the reactors are completed)?”
Mahdi asks, “what about Iraq? Did Baghdad defy the international community? If so, how? Did Iraq’s refusal to take back the inspectors ordered out by the US in 1998 (who turned out to be spying against Iraq’s national security and trying to drive a wedge between it and the Security Council as confirmed by former inspector Rolf Ekeus) constitute a challenge to the international community?
“Moreover, Iraq has now taken back the inspectors and they are going about their job freely and with unfettered access to all Iraqi sites of their own choosing, including those designated by the American and British governments but they have found nothing prohibited.
“So where is the defiance? Why are America and Britain continuing to threaten Iraq? Is it because Iraq is an Arab country? Is it because Iraq is an oil-producing country? Or is it because the Zionist gang inside the US administration is determined to settle accounts with Iraq to Tel Aviv’s benefit?”
Mahdi says that “in commenting on the two cases of Iraq and North Korea, Robert Jervis, the Adlai E. Stevenson professor of international politics at Columbia University, said it was ridiculous to claim that Baghdad poses a bigger threat than Pyongyang because it is certain that the latter has a nuclear program while no one is sure that Iraq has one.
“Where we (Iraqis) are concerned, we can confidently declare: Iraq is free of weapons of mass destruction whether nuclear, chemical or biological. And the so-called ‘Iraqi threat’ is a tall American-British tale. The search for proscribed weapons will prove this fact if the inspectors go about their job professionally, impartially and scrupulously, without allowing Washington to interfere in their work.
“In that case, the Bush administration is up for a very big shock and the world will come to realize how much this cruel administration has hurt Iraq and harmed its people.”
Kamal Hamad, writing for the Beirut daily Al-Mustaqbal, suspects US designs on Iraq, “including the scenario of partitioning the country among its Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite components, could prove to be the first step in breaking up the entire Arab region into confessional and feuding mini-states that would constantly seek outside help, with Israel remaining whole as the region’s most powerful and dominant Jewish overlord.”
He says this, plus the expected infighting among the region’s confessional mini-states, will bury “such slogans as the liberation of Palestine and the recovery of occupied Arab lands” from Israel and allow the United States to effectively lay its hands on Arab oil riches and appoint long-term American military governors in various parts of the Arab region.
The Saudi daily Okaz protests what it calls “American lies” in a reference to a report in The New York Times earlier this week claiming that Saudi Arabia has privately told American military officials that the kingdom would make its air space, air bases and a key operations center available to US forces in the event of war on Iraq.
“The lies that found their way to The New York Times were not surprising … because the media game in America is not uncommon, nor is the use of the US media as a means of pressure at times, or as a test balloon at others or as a way of leaking information by one official or another,” Okaz writes in its main leader.
The paper adds: “If The New York Times, whose inclinations and instigators are well-known, timed its report to muddle unequivocal (Saudi) positions by attributing statements to real or imaginary officials, the fact remains that the kingdom’s stances were unambiguous, firm and explicit, leaving no room for talk of private assurances, which have no place in reality except in the imagination of those who failed to lure the kingdom into taking positions that contradict its convictions and declared policies.
“The kingdom is not two-faced and does not have private and declared policies vis-a-vis international issues. Prince Saud al-Faisal told his first regular press conference last week: ‘We will not participate, or allow the use of our territory, in the mugging of Iraq.’”
Another Saudi daily, Al-Riyadh, repeats accusations that the Bush administration wants to turn its allies into “simple employees in the world supermarket it is running” and of following the British dictum that great nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies only perpetual interests.
That’s why the White House indicated through aides that any visit by Prince Charles to the United States at this time would be deemed “very unhelpful” due to the prince’s reported opposition to war on Iraq, for fear that such a conflict would lead to a dangerous rift between the West and the Muslim world.
Al-Riyadh remarks that “in much of his positions,” the prince of Wales shows himself to be “sympathetic to the Muslim world.”
The daily also points out that “it is not the first time” that the White House drops diplomatic niceties to give lessons around, recalling how President George W. Bush greeted with a studied chill the reelection
of German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder for having declared his firm opposition to a US war on Iraq.
Talal Salman, publisher of the Beirut daily Al-Safir, tells readers he has little, if any, comforting news for the New Year.
“Tomorrow,” he writes, “we’ll bid farewell to another year full of heavy defeats on the general Arab level and welcome a New Year auguring heavier defeats.”
In Lebanon, governance is “on holiday,” he writes, but “that’s tolerable compared to what is threatening the Arab motherland and its peoples, political entities and economic resources.”
Palestine is “melting away city after city, village after village, and refugee camp after refugee camp to make space for new (Jewish) settlements, settlement bypass roads and (Israeli) security exigencies, while the American ‘road map’ for a Palestinian state winds its way between Washington and Tel Aviv in the hope that by time it is approved by the criminal Ariel Sharon, its announcement will be put off until after the destruction of Iraq.
“This is not to mention that some people believe the road map is meant to point the way out for Palestinians from their land, perhaps to new entities that the American occupation will set up (in Iraq,) the land of
Al-Rafidain (meaning the two rivers the Tigris and Euphrates).”
Salman says arms inspectors are meanwhile hollowing out Iraq from one end to another, violating its state, economic, business and learning institutions and cross-examining its scientists and experts on grounds that they are the breeders of terrorism.
“The year dawning on us will be hard,” he writes, “for never was the pan-Arab nation under occupation as it is today not under the Crusaders, not under the Ottomans and not under the old colonialist rule. It never happened that all its resources were either debilitated or embezzled or seized as they are today. Even the states with rich natural resources Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Iraq, etc. are overburdened with massive debts, pressure from the International Monetary Fund and exorbitant bills for tanks and warplanes that are of use only to their manufacturers.
“Foreign occupation both American and Israeli envelops our (Arab) land, sea, air space and (rulers’) will. Consequently, (Arab) armies built at astronomical costs have been turned into formations for folkloric parades, or into forces to protect the rear of occupation troops, or into repression instruments.”
The year 2003, continues Salman, will be harsh and “overflowing with fire, blood and extermination and partition plans.”
“The resolutions of the Arab summit in Beirut failed to prevent the catastrophes of the year about to end despite the Arab (Peace) Initiative that offered the Americans and Israelis
the peace of the weak. Hopefully, the next Arab summit to be held in Bahrain in three months time will find something to trade off in Iraq, Palestine and perhaps other Arab states.
“It might well be that we will end up mourning and shedding tears over the closing year,” he concludes.

Time for Arab world to take control of its own destiny

The Daily Star, 12/31/02

One way or another, the coming year will be a seminal one for the Arab world. As has often been the case, the seeds of change have been planted by outsiders, and unless the region decides to make 2003 the year in which it takes hold of its own destiny, Arabs will continue to be buffeted by forces beyond their control.
The Cold War allowed all sorts of dysfunctional systems to thrive under the protective umbrellas of the two principal contestants, the United States and the Soviet Union. When it ended, most of these regimes fell apart. Not so in the Arab world, which has remained in the sway of 1950s-style Third World statecraft whose sole products are police states, moribund economies and unhappy peoples.
This inability to adapt has made the Arab world more vulnerable than ever, so it should come as no surprise that with a war looking set to break out in Iraq we as a civilization are powerless to prevent it even if we were not divided over whether we want to. So low has Arab governance sunk that the strongest impetus toward democracy in the Middle East is a piddling $28 million proposal put forth by the very country now poised to ravage Iraq for the second time in 12 years.
It is not as though Arabs lack the ability to improve their lot. People from this part of the world have become leaders in innumerable fields. The problem is that most of these have had to leave to do so. Conditions in their home countries are simply not conducive to the creativity and dynamism required to excel. In fact, the odd insincere speech notwithstanding, Arab rulers are indefatigably hostile to new ideas of any sort. They think this makes them stronger and more important, but its real effect is only to increase their impotence and decrease their influence. With each passing day they become more deeply mired in an irrelevance of their own making.
It is hard to feel sympathy for would-be emperors whose backward notions continue to make them vassals of those they claim to defy. The same cannot be said, however, of those unfortunate souls who have to live under such pathetically inadequate leadership.
And so they leave. Or they stay and pursue lives devoid of genuine accomplishment or even the dreams thereof. All the while, their leaders self-satisfied for no apparent reason sit atop gaudy thrones and preside over the process of their own demise.
Even if the US “democratization” campaign is genuine, it will not be able to impose new standards on Arab governance. Democracy is of necessity a homegrown crop. It can be inspired by ideas and principals from abroad, but its institutions and priorities must be established domestically. To accomplish this, Arab countries have to devote themselves both individually and collectively to building better futures for their respective peoples. Organizations like the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council must throw off the chains of their traditional lethargy and strive to fulfill their potential by concentrating on concrete results rather than empty rhetoric.
Like people everywhere, Arabs deserve democracy. Hopefully, 2003 will be the year when they finally start the trek to a better way of life.

Washington and London’s subtle pro-Sharon campaign

By Joseph Samaha

The Daily Star, 12/31/02

Months ago, we were promised a Middle East peace conference. US Secretary of State Colin Powell and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said that it would be held “soon.” But that promise evaporated quickly, and all attention was shifted to Iraq.
Yet the British and the Americans know full well that they must keep something cooking where the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is concerned. They know that the hallowed institution of the “peace process” must be kept alive, and that the mere mention of its existence can sometimes act as a substitute for full-blown negotiations.
Hence a so-called “road map” was put in circulation, with the understanding that it would rapidly be adopted. In fact, Powell made a point of mentioning the road map when he announced his plan to introduce democracy in the Arab world. With Israel facing early elections, however, the road map was thrown into question. It needed to be shelved in order to allow one major issue to attract all the attention.
Yet withdrawing the road map without replacing it with another plan was dangerous. And since the Americans were uninterested in proposing an alternative, the British had to act.
Blair thus came up with the idea of holding a “Palestinian reform” conference (in London on Jan. 12-13) at about the time US President George W. Bush was scheduled to meet with the “Quartet” led by the United States and involving the EU, Russia and the UN. While Blair undoubtedly asked the Americans for their permission to make his proposal, it would not be too much of a risk to say that he did not consult with his EU partners. Blair chose the date with great deliberation: He announced his initiative while the Iraqi opposition was holding a conference in London, and Syrian President Bashar Assad was on a state visit to Britain.
This timing leads to the conclusion that Blair wanted to deliver two messages: one to the Palestinians, saying that they had better emulate the Iraqi opposition in conforming to Anglo-American policy; and the other to the Syrians, telling them that hard-line positions would only lead to isolation since other Arabs, such as the Egyptians, Saudis, and Jordanians, would be invited to attend. Syria would thus be made to pay for its insistence on hosting Palestinian groups in Damascus.
Reform is another way of saying “elections,” which are supposed to be the key to reform. Yet the Palestinians say that elections are impossible to hold under occupation, and they are therefore compelled to put them off until more favorable conditions come along. Any neutral observer would concur with this view, especially if he/she were aware of the scale of Israel’s military presence and behavior in built-up Palestinian areas.
Nevertheless, Palestinian protests are falling on deaf ears. According to the prevailing logic in the US and Israel, Israeli military occupation would not be an impediment to democracy so long as the stated policy is to occupy Iraq in order to introduce democracy there.
Taking this argument to its conclusion, it could be said that foreign occupation is an essential prerequisite for people to enjoy democracy “voluntarily.”
This is the equation called for by advocates of this twisted logic. Palestinian reform, they say, would result in rolling back the occupation as long as it means stopping terrorism, and ushering in a more pliant leadership that would adopt the British call for an American-Israeli peace conference without deviating too much from the European position.
The Europeans tend to give priority to steps taken by the Palestinians over those taken by Israel. Blair’s proposal however only takes into account unilateral Palestinian steps without Tel Aviv having to do anything in return. How could the Israelis take any steps, after all, if they are preoccupied with a general election?
Israel’s Jan. 28 election, in fact, was the pretext used by Bush to postpone announcing the road map when he met the Quartet.
It must be mentioned at this point that Quartet members abandoned their own proposals in favor of adopting the American point of view. The Europeans apparently forgot that they had proposed an alternative, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan did not remember what Security Council resolutions say, and the Russians overlooked their reservations. Everyone jumped on the American bandwagon only to discover that Washington was not interested anymore.
The Americans dropped the entire Palestinian issue like a hot potato, with total disregard for the sensitivities of the other parties, and for the fact that it might need their support in the Security Council concerning Iraq.
Washington’s first excuse was that the road map was not ready yet. When it was told that the map was already published on the internet, it said that it needed amendments: The authorities granted to the interim Palestinian state should not be too wide; there should be stronger emphasis on the condition which says that the new leadership must have a clean record as far as terrorism is concerned.
It was abundantly clear that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon inspired these two points. It was enough for the Quartet to announce their rejection of these amendments, and cancel a scheduled press conference with Powell, for Washington to succeed in putting off announcing the road map until after the Israeli election or even till after a war on Iraq.
It did not need a lot of intelligence to figure out that the postponement was Sharon’s. In fact, American officials said so explicitly and argued about it with the Europeans, revealing that what was at issue was more than mere timing.
The Europeans saw that it was necessary to announce the road map because that would benefit Israeli voters when they go to the polls. Knowing what the map entailed would enable Israelis to choose wisely who they wanted to lead them, especially since Israeli voters are sensitive to the opinions of major powers, particularly the US. It would be better therefore according to the European point of view to make Israelis understand that the international community expects them to vote for the party that adopts positions more in tune with what the big powers believe is the solution for the Middle East crisis. It is no secret that this European position supported by Russia and the UN favors Labor Party leader Amram Mitzna.
The Americans, however, said it would be unacceptable to influence the outcome of the elections. Since announcing the road map would force Sharon to reject and Mitzna to accept it, the exercise would become an unfair attempt to influence the result. Washington realized that Sharon’s program lies well to the right of the road map, and that consequently he could never accept it. The Americans also recognized that Mitzna could use the plan to his advantage, even though his program lies to its left. This being the case, Washington’s decision to postpone can only be construed as siding with the right.
As a matter of fact, it was not really necessary to wait for the postponement to discover where America stood. There were many factors that pointed to Washington’s preferences, including significantly the fact that Elliot Abrams (a well-known American Likudnik) was appointed to a sensitive post on the National Security Council (as special assistant to Bush and senior director for Near East and North African affairs, including Arab-Israeli relations) just before the postponement was announced.
In short, the scene will look like this: While waiting for Iraq’s fate to be decided, everything possible will be done to ensure Sharon’s success in the election. The Palestinian reform conference will be used to fill the vacuum while strengthening US bias toward Israel.

Joseph Samaha is the editor in chief of the Beirut daily As-Safir.

White House proves bias

By Laila al-Marayati

The Daily Star, 12/31/02

Condoleezza Rice’s decision to appoint Elliott Abrams as senior director of the National Security Council’s office for Near East and North African affairs should remove any lingering doubt about the Bush administration’s policy in the Middle East. Putting Abrams in charge of the office which oversees Arab-Israeli relations and peace-promoting efforts in the region all but eliminates any possibility for Bush to portray himself as an advocate for peace, justice and reconciliation between Israelis, Palestinians and the neighboring countries. Instead, Abrams’ appointment could be interpreted as the White House’s defiant response to the Pew Research Center’s recent report that many in Europe and the Muslim and Arab world view the US negatively, primarily because of US foreign policy.
As one of the neoconservatives populating Bush’s staff, Abrams, like others, is a strong supporter of the ultra-right wing in Israel. The fact that he is totally unsuitable and ultimately dangerous for this position is reflected by his actions and words during the two years we were both members of the Commission on International Religious Freedom, ending in May, 2001.
During that time, the newly formed commission tackled controversial and potentially contentious issues in order to influence US foreign policy with the goal of combating religious persecution abroad. The commission did not shy away from addressing even the most difficult conflicts involving inter-religious strife as found in Indonesia and Nigeria.
As part of the process to make informed recommendations to the president, commissioners and staff frequently traveled to countries of concern. Toward the end of our tenure, the commissioners decided that a trip to the Middle East was in order and unanimously agreed that we should include Egypt and Saudi Arabia on the itinerary in view of discrimination against religious minorities, particularly Christians, in those countries. Throughout the year, the commission had also addressed discrimination in Israel against Muslims, Christians and non-Orthodox Jews so logically a trip to the Middle East should include Israel. As chairman of the commission at the time, Abrams led the delegation to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but did not go to Jerusalem with three of us as he had clearly stated at previous meetings that there are no problems with religious freedom in Israel that would warrant the attention of the commission. For him to join the delegation would be an admission that Israel bears scrutiny.
A brief look at the Country Reports on Human Rights published annually by the State Department reveals that the degree of discrimination against minorities in Israel proper (not to mention the Occupied Territories) is at least on par with if not worse than that experienced by Coptic Christians in Egypt. Nevertheless, Abrams would not apply a uniform standard by which to judge religious freedom violations of any given country, relying instead on his own perceptions and preferences.
Bypassing Israel was not the only way Abrams undermined the commission’s visit to the Middle East. By snubbing the leading Islamic cleric in Egypt, the Sheikh of Al-Azhar, Abrams nearly created a diplomatic nightmare that was only narrowly averted by the intervention of the US ambassador. In the end, the commission published reports of its findings and recommendations, but failed to agree to a report on Israel. Abrams favored a statement that only addressed the issue of the controversial construction of a mosque in front of the Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth, critical only of Muslims without any mention of the well-known negative effects of Israeli government interference in the
conflict.
Abrams is now in a position to represent all Americans who care about what happens in the Middle East. With such unapologetic bias already demonstrated, how can anyone expect him to advocate for a peace that promotes justice, as opposed to perpetuating the status quo in favor of Israeli hegemony?
The administration should be prepared to spend time and money on its public relations campaign to deal with the wake left by Abrams as he embarks on diplomatic efforts in the Middle East and elsewhere unless Bush’s true intention is to send a message to the world that he, like Abrams, favors and will continue to endorse the current hard-line Israeli posture at the expense of peace and security for both Israelis and Palestinians and at the expense of US interests in regional stability.
It doesn’t take much to understand why hostility for the US is increasing in the Middle East. Since this administration is willing to sacrifice human rights for other strategic interests, it must be willing to pay the price in decreased popularity around the world.
For Bush’s public relations team to think that superficial statements and gestures toward Muslims and Arabs will make them view our government in a more favorable light while the rest of our policy continues in its current direction, reinforced by Abrams’ promotion, reflects a naive and patronizing approach that will harm American interests in the long run.

Laila al-Marayati of Los Angeles, California, was a member of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom from 1999 to 2001

The Barzanis from Tehran to London

By Ali Nourizadeh

The Daily Star, 12/31/02

A photograph published by Iran’s official Islamic Republic News Agency of the Dec. 9 meeting in Tehran between Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) leader Masoud Barzani and Iranian Expediency Council Chairman Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani brought back old memories.
It was the first meeting between the two men in over eight years, during which relations between Tehran and the KDP went through a period of tension.
I was reminded of a visit to the town of Karaj, 40 kilometers west of Tehran, which, with its rivers, green hills, and flower gardens, was (and still is) a place where Iranians go to relax.
It is at a Karaj suburb called “Little Kurdistan” where the Kurds’ historic leader, Mullah Mustafa Barzani, had been billeted by the shah. Barzani and his followers were forced to flee Iraqi Kurdistan after Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi signed the 1975 Algiers Accord with Iraq’s then-vice-president, Saddam Hussein. The Algiers Accord put an end to a long-standing (since Ottoman times) border dispute between Iraq and Iran that centered on the Shatt-al-Arab waterway. In the agreement, Iraq recognized Iran’s right to half of the Shatt. The thalweg or median course of the river was designated as the border, while Iran agreed to suspend its support for Barzani’s peshmerga fighters.
My trip to Karaj, where I was received by Barzani’s eldest son Idriss, was to enquire after the health of the wounded “Lion of Kurdistan” and to interview him. With his business suit and Yves St. Laurent tie, the mullah looked very different from the image I had of him that of a mountain warrior in Kurdish dress, with bandoliers and a rifle on his shoulder.
We spoke for more than two hours while Idriss sat silently at his father’s side. The mullah spoke of Kurdistan, of mountains that reach to the sun, of Dohuk, Koysanjaq, Irbil and Suleimaniyeh. He spoke of the bitterness of defeat, of betrayal, and of the dagger his “friends” had buried in his back.
Following the publication of the interview, I received a phone call from Idriss to express his father’s gratitude. That was the last I heard of the mullah for a while this was 1979, when the shah was forced to leave Iran and Ayatollah Khomeini made his triumphant return to Tehran although I was aware that the Kurdish leader was undergoing cancer treatment in the United States.
The Iranian Islamic revolution did not pay much attention to the mullah save when some revolutionary fanatics who believed that anyone who so much as had a cup of tea with the shah was a stooge desecrated his grave. For Barzani’s body had been temporarily interred in the northern Iranian Kurdish town of Oshnavieh until it could be taken to its final resting place across the border.
Despite the unfavorable circumstances that prevailed in Iran at the time, I penned an article about the mullah in “Omid Iran” (a magazine which I edited) severely criticizing “those who desecrated the grave of the man revered by all Kurds from Anatolia to Iran, including Iraq.” I also wrote about the mullah’s 50-year struggle, his role in bringing the Kurdish question to world attention, and his cooperation with Iran.
The next day, five men in Kurdish dress visited me at the magazine. One of them was Idriss. I welcomed him and expressed my anguish at what had been done to his father’s grave. Idriss, however, reassured me that Mullah Mustafa was resting in peace once again, after Iranian Kurdish leader Abderrahman Qassemlu intervened and ordered the arrest of the assailants.
We talked about Iran and Iraq. Idriss said that Mohammed Mokri, one of the members of an Iranian committee set up to mediate between the revolutionary government and the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI), had arranged for him to meet with Khomeini.
Certain circumstances and events (among which was my refusal to toe the government line) forced me to eventually leave Iran. Idriss and his brother Masoud were not the only friends I didn’t manage to say goodbye to when the time came for me to leave Iran.
I later learned that Idriss, Masoud and their men had returned to their beloved mountains with the help of the Iranians to resume their fight for Kurdish rights against the Iraqi regime, and perhaps to strike a blow against the agreement that led to their dispersal many years earlier.
Yet Idriss and Masoud’s refusal to toe the Iranian government line always reminded me that they were as high-principled as their father was. They refused to attack Iraqi forces while these forces were defending Iraqi soil, for example, and they also refused Iranian requests to open a second front against Iraq when Iranian forces launched an offensive in Kurdistan with the aim of capturing Suleimaniyeh and Halabja. Because of their independence, Idriss and Masoud were always harassed in Iran. Idriss subsequently died (or was assassinated), and the eight-year Iran-Iraq war ended in 1988 with Khomeini taking the “poison” of UN Resolution 598.
Shortly afterward, I learned that Masoud Barzani had returned to Iraqi Kurdistan once again, taking with him the remains of his father and brother.
Many years passed before I met Masoud again. As it happened, Masoud Barzani managed to return to Iran after eight years, while I have not been able to see my homeland for 22. A hundred different reasons prevent me from going home. Masoud had one simple reason: his refusal to become a puppet in the hands of any regime Baathist or Islamic.
When Iranian envoy Ali Agha Mohammedi the national security adviser for Kurdish affairs and supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s personal representative asked Barzani to “open Kurdistan’s borders to our intelligence operatives, and expel Iranian KDP fighters and cadres from Koysanjaq,” Barzani told him that “any transgression against my brother Iranian Kurds living among us would be a transgression against Masoud Barzani personally, and against all Kurds.”
Relations between the two sides deteriorated after that, especially where Khamenei and his aides were concerned. But Barzani made a point of maintaining ties with President Mohammad Khatami and his government.
On his visit to Tehran earlier this month, Barzani met with Khatami, Intelligence and Security Minister Ali Yunesi, Majlis Speaker Mehdi Karrubi, Iranian Kurdish MPs, leaders of the Revolutionary Guards and Rafsanjani. He did not, however, ask to meet Khamenei. Thus relations between Barzani and the Iranian revolution cannot be said to have been restored despite the KDP leader’s visit to Tehran. Contacts with the Iranian government, however, were resumed.
Besides securing Iran’s acceptance for a federal solution for Iraq, and achieving an alliance with the Tehran-based Shiite Supreme Assembly for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Barzani also managed to extract a promise from Iranian leaders to find a solution for the problem of thousands of exiled Iranian Kurds living in Iraqi Kurdistan since the early days of the Islamic revolution.
I will be meeting Masoud in London, where he attended the Iraqi opposition conference. I already know that Mullah Mustafa’s son is going to tell me the glad news that I as well as thousands of Iranians who were forced to flee Iran will soon be able to return home.

Ali Nourizadeh, former political editor of the Tehran daily Ettelaat, is an Iranian researcher at the London-based Center for Arab-Iranian Studies and the editor of its Arabic-language newsletter, Al-Mujes an-Iran

http://www.aljazeerah.info

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's.