Dino Frisullo: Guerra all'Iraq e diritti negati ai kurdi

[ranch@ranchdeiviandanti.it]

Da parte di:  Dino Frisullo, 8 Febbraio 2003

 Subject: CONTRIBUTO CRITICO AL CONVEGNO DI IVREA
"Guerra all'Iraq e diritti negati ai kurdi"
 Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003
 From: "dino frisullo" <dinofrisullo@libero.it>
 To: <ranch@ranchdeiviandanti.it>, <ivreaqaladiza@libero.it>

Cari amici di Ivrea,
molti esuli kurdi apriranno la manifestazione del 15 febbraio a Roma contro
la guerra. Senza se e senza ma.
A Diyarbakir duemila donne kurde, davanti alla base aerea di Incirlik i
kurdi attivisti dell'Associazione diritti umani, hanno affrontato i bastoni
della polizia turca per manifestare contro la guerra. Senza se e senza ma.
Un volantino che avete diffuso qualche settimana fa, polemico nei confronti
"dei pacifisti", diceva invece (cito a memoria): la guerra è una brutta
cosa, MA...
MA Saddam Hussein è un dittatore sanguinario, autore alla fine degli anni
'80 di una pulizia etnica dei kurdi che ha sfiorato il genocidio, e che
prosegue nell'arabizzazione forzata delle aree kurde che ancora controlla.
E' vero. Chi può negarlo? Ma quelle armi e quei gas, glieli avevano forniti
gli stessi Usa che oggi alcuni leader kurdi d'Iraq considerano liberatori.
Gli stessi che li lasciarono nuovamente massacrare nel '91, prima di usarli
per giustificare la no-fly-zone e i bombardamenti.
Prima di usarli, oggi, per giustificare una nuova spaventosa guerra. In
gran parte dal territorio kurdo, in territorio kurdo.
Mi dicono che Suleymanye, la bella Suleymanye, si sta spopolando. Zakho è
già una città fantasma. La gente fugge prima del diluvio. La gente sa la
guerra. La gente kurda è contro questa guerra.
Ma il Venerdì di Repubblica titola: "L'alleato kurdo". Sottotitolo:
"Viaggio nella periferia ribelle del regno di Saddam. Dove all'ombra della
no-fly-zone è nato il libero Kurdistan. Che ora punta sugli Usa..."
Pochi giorni fa lo citavo anche in risposta a una mail giustamente
angosciata di Annet Henneman.
E' drammatico, è terribile che ancora una volta alcuni leader
kurdo-irakeni, invece di costruire un'unità e quindi una forza contrattuale
kurda contro tutti gli invasori e gli oppressori (Saddam compreso, ma anche
l'alleanza turco-americana), cadano nell'eterno inganno di pensare che la
libertà viaggi sulle ali dei bombardieri altrui.
E' lo stesso inganno che li ha portati a combattersi fra loro,
appoggiandosi uno all'Iran l'altro all'Iraq negli anni '80, uno ai turchi
l'altro agli irakeni negli anni '90, e poi volta a volta l'uno o l'altro
alla Turchia contro i fratelli kurdi del Pkk, che ora ambedue, ospiti della
Albright, chiamano terroristi...
E' drammatico anche che il vostro amore per questo pezzo di mondo vi porti
a dimenticare, come pacifisti, che non si può chiedere l'esilio di un
dittatore a un esercito aggressore. Oggi Milosevic fa la parte della
vittima nel tribunale dei vincitori, anche perchè una parte del suo popolo
(e del pacifismo occidentale) applaudì ai bombardamenti Nato. E nè il suo
paese nè il Kosovo possono dirsi liberi e democratici. E generazioni di
bambini moriranno dei veleni di quella guerra. Lasciamo da parte il
fall-out delle armi "intelligenti" che si useranno in questa guerra,
nucleare non escluso.
Guardiamo ai giochi in corso. Gli Usa stanno comprando l'alleanza turca con
il via libera all'oppressione dei kurdi in Turchia da un lato,
all'occupazione turca di una parte del Kurdistan irakeno dall'altro. E gli
iraniani non staranno certo a guardare. Nè starà a guardare Saddam, o
chiunque gli succeda a Baghdad. La posta in gioco è il petrolio di Kirkuk e
Mosul, ma anche lo strozzamento di ogni idea di libertà kurda.
Una tenaglia si sta stringendo sull'effimera libertà del Sud Kurdistan.
Possibile che non lo vediate? Possibile che i leader kurdo-irakeni (non
tutti: il Pc d'Iraq (kurdo) si è espresso a Roma contro la guerra) prestino
fede alle promesse americane?
Possibile che non si rendano conto che l'interessato messaggio che passa
("i kurdi sono parte della Grande Alleanza") rischia di scavare un solco
profondo fra i kurdi e il popolo irakeno, fra i kurdi e il mondo arabo, fra
i kurdi e il pacifismo in Occidente, fra i kurdi e quella grande parte
dell'umanità, da Mandela ai SemTerra, che non vuole questa guerra?
Io spero di vedervi, e di vedere tanti degli esuli dal Sud Kurdistan, il 15
febbraio a Roma. Contro la guerra, e contro Saddam e tutti i regimi e i
potenti della terra. Per fermare le bombe, e dare ali alla libertà dei
popoli. Senza se e senza ma.
Scusandomi perchè sono in inglese e non ho ora il tempo di tradurli, vi
allego alcuni documenti utili: un'analisi su "I kurdi e la guerra" della
Campagna Pace in Kurdistan avviata in Gb da intellettuali come H. Pinter,
N. Chomsky e A. Miller, e tre recentissimi articoli del Glasgow Herald, di
KurdishMedia e del NYT sul grande gioco turco-americano già in corso, con
decine di migliaia di militari già entrati, in quella parte del Kurdistan.
Chiedo ad Aldo di estendere questo messaggio al resto dell'indirizzario al
quale è arrivato il vostro, come materiale di riflessione
Con amicizia,

Dino Frisullo


 ==----

Peace in Kurdistan (U.K.)- "War and the Kurds":

4 February 2003

As the darkening clouds of war gather over the Middle East it is clear that
no-one will be left untouched by the fall out (a phrase chosen carefully).
War once unleashed does not discriminate in its choice of casualties; even
the much advertised 'smart bombs' are not smart enough to spare the
innocents. The Kurdish people, of course, are positioned geo-strategically
right in the middle of the coming maelstrom and another tragedy of Biblical
proportions could be in the offing for them. A repeat performance of 1991
would indeed be a humanitarian disaster for the Kurds, but this is one
scenario that cannot be discounted, since war has a tendency to
unpredictable consequences, despite the highly sophisticated control rooms
now at the disposal of today's military strategists.

While the Kurds of Iraq, unsurprisingly given their past ordeals, have
thrown in their lot with the aggressors/liberators (the US-led 'coalition',
that incidentally includes NATO loyalist Turkey, remains their only
begetter and protector, so they don't have much real choice), the Kurds of
Turkey view things rather differently; right now they are facing a
tightening of repression under the guise of war preparations and the
holding out of no prospects of war gains for them. The people in southeast
Turkey are overwhelmingly opposed to a war. They know only too well that
the conflict will inflict additional hardship as the economy is further
depressed and income from cross-border trade is curtailed, but they also
understand that it will mark a setback for advancing their cause of
establishing a free and democratic society in the Kurdish region. War
conditions will give Turkey free rein to intensify the severe restrictions
on basic civil liberties that are already in place. Turkey's paranoia about
even the minimum Kurdish self-expression is reflected in its determination
at all costs to prevent the break up of Iraq and the setting up of any
Kurdish regional administration in Northern Iraq. Unfortunately, Turkey's
bargaining power with Washington is rising since the US simply desperately
needs to use the bases inside Turkey in its bombing campaign and invasion
of Iraq.

The Iraqi Kurds may hope that soon they will breathe the air of freedom in
their own land, within their 'federal Iraq', to which they officially
cling, under Washington's watchful gaze, but who is to say that this
post-war air will not be tainted with the residues of depleted uranium,
assorted chemical weapons or even the unleashing UK Defence Secretary Geoff
Hoon's nuclear option? In this respect by joining the war party so
emphatically, the leaders in Suleimaniya and Irbil may be dicing with their
people's destiny. Turkey, meanwhile, has been avidly eyeing the oil-rich
cities of Mosul and Kirkuk in Northern Iraq/South Kurdistan and has even
gone so far as to look into the possibilities of reviving its alleged
historic claims on the territory. Such a turn of events could only bode ill
for the Kurds. Once Turkish troops are embedded in there it is not likely
that they will just go quietly.

The coming war could be a long haul. It certainly seems unlikely to be a
sharp surgical operation to remove the cancerous tumour that has long
blighted the local body politic; there is the prospect that Iraq will
collapse into the chaos of gang warfare, replicating unfolding events in
Afghanistan only on a much larger scale. Enmities generated are likely to
endure for generations.

In what is seen by Kurds as a highly provocative measure, the Turkish
authorities, under the unoriginal pretext of 'bad weather', have been
refusing visitors access to Abdullah Ocalan detained in solitary
confinement on Imrali Island. No-one has been allowed to see him for 10
weeks now, a time span which coincidentally matches almost exactly the time
that the new government has been in office. This isolation is effectively a
form of torture. As long as no independent person, whether his lawyers, his
family, or a representative of an NGO, is allowed to see Ocalan, Kurds,
only too well aware of what happens to those held inside Turkish jails,
will naturally fear the worst. Ocalan has inspired thousands, indeed
millions, of Kurdish people with the self-confidence to feel proud about
their distinct identity. He commands widespread respect among the people
for whom he is a symbol of hope and endurance. Furthermore, his treatment
has become a symbol of the neglectful way that the Turkish state deals with
its Kurdish population. By deliberately provoking, indeed taunting, popular
opinion about Ocalan's health and conditions, confined alone for years in a
small, damp, barely legal prison cell, Turkey is sowing discord and stoking
the flames of conflict. Under cover of the approaching war, very little
pressure from the outside can now be brought to bear on Turkey; their
principal ally, the US, has actively encouraged the stepping up of
repression by, for example, formally naming KADEK as a proscribed terrorist
group, as if the years of peaceful campaigning by the organisation and its
forerunner had never occurred.

The US is keen for Turkey to get fully onside in the war and is to this end
offering between $4 and $15 billion as a sweetener to soften the blows of
any dislocation caused by the impact of war in terms of a refugee influx
and loss of trade. Ruling AKP party leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan has warned
that Turkey will forfeit its right to have a say in the future of Iraq if
it does not closely participate in the crusade against Saddam. Evidently,
the discrete behind the scenes arm twisting from the US on Ankara has been
immense. It wants the use of bases on Turkish soil, but in reality they are
on Kurdish soil, at Batman and Diyarbakir, as well as Incirlik. In
addition, the US wants permission to station up to 80 thousand troops there
in preparation for an invasion from the North. While such negotiations have
been taking place, Turkey has been given leverage to toughen up on the
Kurds under the pretext of imminent war danger, and, as long as the focus
is on Iraq, Turkey will be relatively free from what it always regards as
intrusive media scrutiny from the West, thus foiling Europe's tentative
moves to encourage a modicum of reforms.

Mass international opposition against the imminent humanitarian catastrophe
possibly remains the greatest source of hope and illumination as the world
moves relentlessly to war. But there is still an opportunity for the more
enlightened governments and institutions to wake up even at this late hour
to the urgent necessity to change gear and reverse current policies in
favour of a process of democratic dialogue.

 * Peace in Kurdistan is an Campaign for a political solution of the
Kurdish question.
Patrons: Lord
Avebury, John Austin MP, Lord Rea, Lord Dholakia, Baroness Sarah Ludford
MEP, John Bowis
MEP, Julie Christie, Harold Pinter, Noam Chomsky, Arthur Miller, Edward
Albee, Naguib
Mahfouz.

 ==---------------

 The Glasgow Herald - "Turkey on alert to stop Kurdish freedom move":

 5 January 2003 / by Ian Bruce

TURKEY is prepared to move a 100,000-man army into northern Iraq to
prevent, by force, the establishment of an independent Kurdish state and
seize key northern oilfields if the US launches an attack to topple Saddam
Hussein, according to military and diplomatic sources.

The Turkish high command confirmed yesterday that substantial
reinforcements are being sent to its 2nd army in the south-eastern Malatya
province "in light of possible developments that might have implications
for regional security and to prevent a possible influx of Iraqi civilians
into Turkish territory".

Sources in Nato said the troops had been briefed to establish a
50-mile-deep "security belt" inside Iraq to prevent the Kurds declaring
unilateral independence from Baghdad, and that special forces units were
training for the seizure of the cities of Mosul and Kirkuk - a 200-mile
incursion - to gain control of lucrative northern oilfields.

Despite reassurances from Washington that the 3.5m Kurds living under the
umbrella of the US-UK patrolled northern no-fly zone would not be allowed
to take advantage of a war to secede from Iraq, Ankara has decided to take
its own precautions.

Turkish forces fought a bitter, 10-year guerrilla war against Kurdish
rebels within its borders, which ended only two years ago. More than 30,000
people died and both sides accused each other of atrocities and the UN
accused Ankara of human rights abuses.

The other security concern for Turkey is a flood of refugees. In 1991, more
than 450,000 people escaped the fighting over the mountains into its
territory, creating a humanitarian and economic crisis for which it was
ill-prepared. Another 1.3m fled to Iran.

Thousands of guerrillas from the Kurdish PKK "workers' party" also took the
chance to sneak through under cover of the exodus to fan the flames of
resistance among Kurdish separatists inside Turkey.

Cemil Serhadli, the governor of Diyarbakir, the main administrative centre
for south- eastern Turkey, said yesterday: "If there is a war and another
stream of refugees, then we will stop them before they come to our
territory. We would prefer that they be housed within Iraq's own borders."

The UN has plans to provide tented shelter and medical facilities at 18
temporary camps - five inside Turkey and 13 in Iraq - accommodating 276,000
people, in the event of war.

Turkey, fearful of an Islamic backlash among its own population, has so far
publicly granted the US permission to base only 10,000 troops on its turf
in the event of war.

 ==--------------- KurdishMedia - "Turkey as peacekeeper in post-Saddam Iraq?":

 London / 6 February 2003

The British daily the Times yesterday reported that Turkish troops could
patrol a sector of Iraq as part of a peacekeeping operation after a war and
the expected ousting of Saddam Hussein.

According to the Times, Turkey has already proved its "credentials" in
peacekeeping operations through its successful command of the International
Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kabul, Afghanistan.

"The Americans are hoping that the promise of a role for Turkish troops in
a postwar Iraq might persuade the Ankara Parliament to approve a US troop
presence in Turkey," said the Times.

"The involvement of Turkey in the US-led coalition is seen as one of the
most important elements in the whole American strategy for Iraq, before,
during and after a war.

Turkey's 70 years of experience in oppressing the Kurds through all sorts
of brutal and illegal methods and its "excellence" in "counter-terrorism"
has made Turkey a sought after candidate for "peacekeeping" operations
during the past years.

 ==------------- The New York Times - "U.S. in Talks on Allowing Turkey to
Occupy a
Kurdish Area
in Iraq":

 by DEXTER FILKINS with C. J. CHIVERS

 ANKARA / February 7, 2003

American diplomats are engaged in delicate negotiations here that could
allow tens of thousands of Turkish soldiers to occupy part of northern Iraq
behind an advancing American army, Turkish and Kurdish officials said today.

A United States official confirmed that the negotiations were under way,
but said that the Turks would be restricted to a limited area close to the
border and that the numbers discussed by the Turks and Kurds were
exaggerated.

The plan, which is being negotiated in closed-door meetings in Ankara, the
Turkish capital, is being bitterly resisted by at least some leaders of
Iraq's Kurdish groups, who fear that Turkey's leaders may be trying to
realize a historic desire to dominate the region in a post-Saddam Hussein
Iraq. The Kurdish officials say they fear a military intervention by the
Turks could also prompt Iran to cross the border and try to seize sections
of eastern Iraq.

American diplomats and senior military commanders, led by President Bush's
special envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, are said to be encouraging the Kurdish
leaders to accept the Turkish proposal. While Washington has strongly
supported the autonomous Kurdish region in Iraq over the past 12 years, it
is eager to secure the permission of Turkey's leaders to use Turkey's bases
for a possible attack on Iraq.

The proposed deal between the Americans and the Turks moved closer to
fruition today when the Turkish Parliament voted to allow American
engineers to begin preparing Turkish military bases for possible use by
American troops. A vote on whether to allow American troops to use those
bases is scheduled for Feb. 18.

The size of each projected military force - American and Turkish - is still
unclear. American officials had sought to base as many as 80,000 troops in
Turkey. But some Turkish officials have suggested that the American force
will be significantly smaller, perhaps no more than 15,000 to 20,000. In
negotiations today, Turkish officials said they wanted their forces to
outnumber American ones by a ratio of two to one.

With a war looming, Turkey has sought assurances from the Americans that
the toppling of Mr. Hussein would not result in the establishment of an
independent Kurdish state, which it fears would encourage a revolt by
Turkish Kurds.

Turkey's leaders are determined to prevent a repeat of the Persian Gulf war
in 1991, when

southeastern Turkey was swamped by a half million Kurdish refugees fleeing
attacks by the Iraqi Army. Turkish officials say that pro-Kurdish
guerrillas crossed into Turkey along with the refugees, igniting a bloody
insurgency that the Turkish military has been battling ever since.

But some Kurds are making it clear that they do not want the Turks crossing
Iraq's northern border.

"We have told the Americans and the Turks that any outside intervention
would not be welcomed," said Safeen M. Dizayee, an official with the
Iraq-based Kurdish Democratic Party, who took part in the talks. "I hope it
would not get out of control. But it could be suicidal to get into
something like this if it undermines political stability."

A United States official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed
that the Turks were proposing to send troops into northern Iraq but said
that their role would be sharply limited. The official said that the
Turkish troops would be limited to a portion of Iraqi territory near the
Turkish border, and that the forces would focus primarily on humanitarian
problems and on discouraging people from fleeing to Turkey. Moreover, he
said, the Turkish forces would be under American command and would not be
mixing with the Kurdish troops.

"It would be in a limited area, close to the border," the official said.

One of the aims of the current negotiations, the official continued, was to
bring the Kurds and the Turks to an understanding about a possible Turkish
intervention.

Indeed, there were signs that Iraq's Kurdish leaders were showing a
willingness to work with Turkey's new government, which has deep Islamic
roots and won a majority of seats in the Turkish Parliament last November.
Massoud Barzani, the leader of one of the two major Kurdish groups, the
Kurdistan Democratic Party, was said to have felt comfortable with Turkey's
leaders during a recent visit there.

"He was very impressed with the Turkish government," Fawzi Hariri, a party
spokesman, said of Mr. Barzani. "He thought they were genuine and that he
could trust them."

But statements by Turkish officials suggested that their plans might be
more ambitious. A Turkish official confirmed today that his government was
planning to send troops into northern Iraq in numbers that would exceed
those dispatched by the Americans.

The Turkish officials echoed comments made Wednesday by the Turkish prime
minister, Abdullah Gul. He suggested that the Turkish Army's role would go
beyond humanitarian concerns to protecting Turkish interests in the region.

"Turkey is going to position herself in that region in order to prevent any
possible massacres, or the establishment of a new state," Mr. Gul told
Turkish reporters.

The Turkish official, like Mr. Gul, said the Turkish troops would not take
part in combat with the Iraqis but would instead seek to prevent the
emergence of a Kurdish state in northern Iraq. The official said the Turks
could also check any re-emergence of the Kurdish insurgency that operated
in southeastern Turkey during the 1990's.

The official made it clear that the Turkish troops would protect themselves
if they came under attack.

In recent weeks the Turks have been building their forces on the border,
and some 1,200 Turkish troops are already operating in parts of northern
Iraq, mainly to hunt down pro-Kurdish guerrillas who might be trying to
cross into Turkey.

Mr. Dizayee referred to the various Turkish rationales for intervention as
"pretexts." Like many Kurdish leaders, Mr. Dizayee expressed pride in the
democratic institutions the Kurds have built during their 12 years of
autonomy. He expressed dismay at the prospect that those institutions might
be swamped by an American-led military attack.

"We think these democratic institutions have set a precedent for the rest
of Iraq," Mr. Dizayee said. "If they were undermined, it would reflect
badly on the whole operation."

The American-led talks appear to be focused on choreographing the nearly
simultaneous entry of American combat troops and Turkish soldiers into
northern Iraq. One official with the other major Kurdish group, the
Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, said Mr. Khalilzad had called the meeting to
give each group its final marching orders for what appears to be an
imminent war.

One element of the plan, the Kurdish official said, was to ensure that both
Turkish and Kurdish forces left the northern Iraqi cities of Mosul and
Kirkuk to the American forces. Those cities are the centers of oil
production in the region, and Washington plans to grab the oil fields
before either Iraq destroys them or the Kurds seize them.

The senior official with the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan said the Kurds
were eagerly anticipating the arrival of American soldiers, but not that of
the Turks.

"We regard America as liberators," the official said. "And our neighbors as
looters."