An interview with Amir Hassanpour on recent events in Iraq and Iraqi Kurdistan

18 August 2014. A World to Win News Service. The following interview with Amir Hassanpour of the University of Toronto first appeared in the July issue of Atash (Fire), a communist newspaper in Iran. Atash: We take this opportunity to talk with comrade Amir Hassanpour on recent events in the region and in particular Iraqi Kurdistan, and the on-going discussion about the referendum on independence proposed by the Kurdistan Regional Government. Q: Comrade Amir, we know that in an interview with Voice of America, Massoud Barzani, the president of the Kurdish Regional Government in Iraq, said that Iraq's ruling system has fallen apart and Kurds are not the reason for that. He said that the Kurds had not put previously forward independence from Iraq, even when they were hit by chemical bombardment [under Saddam Hussein, in 1988]. It is the others who have created a situation such that the country is effectively in a state of collapse. Kurds have the right to protect their fatherland, Kurdistan, in order to become a place from where they can help other Iraqi brothers. Kurds should put the independence of the area under the Kurdistan Regional Government to a referendum. What is your position and views on these issues? Amir Hassanpour: It is clear that Kurds are an oppressed nation in Iraq and other countries in the region. Most of the Kurdish people have been craving an independent state. There is no doubt that as an oppressed nation, Kurds have the right to self-determination. Barzani had raised the discussion of independence even before the recent events [ISIS taking control of part of Iraq], without being able or wanting to take any real steps. But now there is a new situation. Iraq has practically disintegrated, due to the actions of the ISIS, tribal forces and the Islamist militia of Moqtada Sadr as well as the policies of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's government. The Kurdistan Regional Government was a result of the first U.S. war against Iraq in 1991. It evolved gradually and took its present form after the second U.S. war in 2003. Now, due to the military advance of ISIS, the conditions to declare independence have ripened. In fact, however, the KRG has been semi-independent so far and any referendum or other consequent actions would formalise what already exists. I should mention that in the last two decades or so, based on international law, several new countries have been created in a similar way – for example South Sudan, East Timor and countries that emerged as a result of the disintegration of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. But if Kurdistan became independent, that would be under particular regional and international conditions where Kurdish nationalists in Iraqi Kurdistan have already been in power. This government represents a nationalism that is in power and has a parliament, executive apparatus [cabinet, administration, an army called Peshmerga, police, a security apparatus, prisons] and justice department, though its powers are more limited than those of U.S. states and Canadian provinces. But since the central government of Iraq doesn't have that much power, the KRG is almost independent. Opposition from the U.S., Iran and Turkey is one of the reasons that this project has not been accomplished, but this situation might change. Though the U.S. might oppose it at the present time, the main problem that the U.S. has with it is not the formation of a Kurdish state. What the U.S. is concerned about most is ensuring its political, economic and military influence in the whole region. For example, they are looking for changes that would guarantee the interests of the U.S. and its allies such as Israel. And one thing is clear, if the U.S. opposes independence, the Kurdish leaders would follow suit. Q: You are saying that Iraqi Kurdistan de facto is independent. But some political trends argue that if Kurdistan becomes independent in a region that Islamism and reactionary forces are growing everywhere, it can become a base for non-religious and secular forces. A power in which feudal patriarchy will disappear and there would be no sign of the kind of religious and ethnic wars that are going on in other parts of Iraq. How much does such a picture correspond to reality? A: It looks more like a dream than reality. After 23 years, the KRG experience has shown something different. It is true that for a short period of time after the collapse of the Saddam regime, Kurds could think they were no longer suffering from national oppression. Many were happy to have an administration, military and justice apparatus in which they could speak in Kurdish, but such celebration did not last long. They soon realised that the new capitalist class that has taken power is resorting to violence, but this time in the Kurdish language. But even if [we assume] national oppression has been diminished to a large extent in this region, U.S. colonial oppression has replaced the national oppression of the Saddam regime. Kurdistan's government has become completely dependent, economically and politically, on the U.S. As far as the interests of the Kurdish people and in particular the majority who are exploited, and also women, half of the population concerned, the KRG and formal independence would not be able to make any changes in those relations. The claim that Kurdistan could be an independent base for secularism or an alternative to the kind of theocracy seen in Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq is very untrue. After theocrats seized power in Iran, the two parties that run the Kurdish government, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), like most of the regimes in the Middle East, tried to become more Islamic. Most of the Iraqi Kurdish nationalists who were non-religious have increasingly resorted to praying and fasting. Despite the fact that nationalist movements after the Second World War were not mainly religious, the leaders and intellectuals of these two Kurdish parties failed to include secularism in their political programmes even in a very limited way, i.e., calling for the separation of the state and religion, and in fact have compromised with religious forces to a large extent. Under the rule of these parties Kurdistan has been filled with mosques and the cities have become cities of minarets [mosque domes]. Consequently this government cannot be called truly secular. It is hard to believe that this government is a progressive force or could help the people in other parts of Iraq since they have increasingly pushed the people of Kurdistan towards religion over the last 23 years. Despite differences within the leadership, this government has oriented itself toward Israel, Turkey and Iran, and I cannot see any degree of progressiveness or liberationism in their words or acts. Q: You said that the KRG has oriented itself toward Israel, but many Kurds do not see anything wrong with that. They argue that Israel has brought about a state for an oppressed nation and it is internally run by a democratic system. And since KRG is a government, it should have relations with other governments in the region, so it is natural to have relations with Turkey and Iran, too. They argue that even though in the past taking a position against Israel and the genocide of Palestinians was a distinguishing characteristic of a progressive stand, that no longer is the case. The problem is that some people do not see anything wrong with aligning themselves with Israel. Some even dream of being treated by the world powers in the same way Israel has been treated by them, so that they can build Kurdistan in the region in the same way Israel was built. A: That's true. One of the dreams of Kurdish nationalists in the last twenty years has been to become like Israel, and for this they have wanted to utilize the imperialist powers' plans for the region [to promote its own independence]. Even worse, some of their intellectuals have idealised the Zionist project as a national liberation movement, and have considered terrorists such as Menachem Begin a freedom fighter. They have even translated some of his writings into Kurdish. The irony is that while some progressive Jews outside Israel consider the Zionist regime as an apartheid and exploiter regime, many of the nationalist Kurds consider it a symbol of democracy and national liberation. This [is serious] and raises questions about their own nature. Those who don't see what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people, who don't see the ethnic cleansing, the crimes against humanity and have no sympathy for the Palestinian people and are not protesting against it, or deny these crimes, not only are not fighting for liberation but knowingly or unknowingly are helping these crimes continue. This is part of the limitation of all nationalist movements that see their interests coincide with the interest of the imperialist powers and system. In fact there is a common interest that compels them to work within the framework of the same system and not against it. The KRG has become part of the nuts and bolts of this system and wishes to become like Israel. But considering present conditions in the region as a whole, even if a referendum were held, it seems unlikely that this country could become [really] independent even if it becomes a member of the UN. All the pillars on which it stands are dependent on other regimes in the region, especially Iran, Turkey and certainly Israel and also to the U.S., more the U.S. than the European Union. This has been and continues to be the case since the KRG was created 23 years ago. Its economy is completely dependent and even its bottled drinking water comes from Turkey and Iran. Its food comes from Turkey, Iran and the U.S. Even Ranak va Chookha [the Kurdish traditional costume] is made in China. Kurdistan's agricultural economy is incapable of providing for the needs of its own people. Saddam destroyed the Kurdish villages during the Anfal genocide operation [launched by the Baathist regime in 1988] and the Kurdish government has not been able to revitalise these villages so that they could be self-sufficient and rely on their own production. For example, take oil production. The KRG cannot export its oil without complete reliance on Turkey. In the current situation, it is not clear what will happen to the south of Iraq, but even if the Kurdish nationalists are thinking about [real] independence, they will not be able to realise it. This government has been dependent economically, politically and militarily from the beginning and up to now on others. In fact some kind of formal independence will not nullify that dependence, but will officialise it. Q: Some refer to the reality of life under the KRG. They say this is an oppressor government. Honour killing incidents are increasing tremendously, Islamism is growing; there is not even one reliable library. Kurdish intellectuals who have been studying in other parts of the world are reluctant to go back to Kurdistan because they don't have the necessary freedom to act and be able to serve the people and exchange their knowledge and experience with the people in Kurdistan. Iranian Kurds are exploited in Iraqi Kurdistan and there is a hierarchy between Iranian Kurds and Iraqi Kurds. Also immigrant workers and servants from the Philippines, Nepal and Bangladesh are harshly exploited in Iraqi Kurdistan. The agricultural economy has not been revitalised and there is no sign of basic industry. But even in light of all that, these people argue that since the Middle East is on fire, Kurdistan would be a safe haven for Kurdish people and those who want to find refuge there. Barzani also gives the impression in an interview that Iraq is on fire and wants to rescue "this room" from of the Iraqi "house". Is that a reality? Doesn't it have a positive aspect? A: It could, if the government had a revolutionary line, but it does not. Q: For example, in WW2, socialist Russia could not stay away from the fire of the war. They were self-sufficient, revolutionary and they had industry. Of course they paid a high price, because so many of their people were killed. How is it possible in such a situation to rescue "a room"? A: As far as the spreading fire is concerned, it is not possible for the KRG to rescue even so much as a small space, first of all because of the nature and the political line of the KRG. Under the guidance of Turkey, the KRG have fought against PKK and massacred their forces (in Iraqi Kurdistan). Both parties (the KDP and PUK) took part in that project. Syrian Kurds recently declared autonomy in some areas in Syrian Kurdistan, but the KRG under Barzani decided to build a canal along the border with Syria, in order to separate the two parts of Kurdistan. The mid-90's war between PUK and KDP known as a "suicidal war" is another example. The KDP demanded help from Saddam's army to suppress the PUK. Kurdish unity and the idea that they would help each other have not worked out so far. Regarding the question of Kurdish workers who come to work from Turkey and Iran, or the treatment of political forces and workers from other parts of the world or other examples, I don't want to say that there is no other kind of relation with Kurds from Turkey or Iran. There are some who are better off. Some Kurds from Iran or Turkey have opened shops or restaurants or have other economic activities. But the political and ideological line of the KRG as a whole is like that of other nationalist rulers. For example, when India became independent in 1948, the whole peninsula was ruled by a nationalist force. This country has a powerful military and relatively powerful industry. It has also many other resources. But the poverty is unbelievable. India has more slaves than anywhere else in the world. We are also aware of the situation for women in India. This is the result of the rule of a nationalist force in India. But to some extent, the national movement that could be considered most comparable with Kurdistan is the Palestinian. Right now, a part of the force that rules Palestine has turned into the gendarme for the Israeli state. The other part of that is a theocratic force, Hamas. These forces do not have the ability to take any steps to liberate the Palestinian people. Of course, Kurdistan has its own geographical area, unlike Palestine, which has been completely occupied and where the brutal process of ethnic cleansing is continuing. But the result of KRG rule has not been so brilliant. The other problem is the political and ideological line and program of Kurdish nationalist leaders. In sum, the Kurdish nationalist leaders are proud to be a part of the nuts and bolts of the imperialist system. They openly say that. They have no alternative and they don't want to try any other alternative. They proudly claim that, unlike many other countries in the Middle East, in Kurdistan there is a free media. But even that is not true. Over the last 20 years there have been many cases of killing journalists and suffocating any kind of criticism. The fact is that, no matter how you look at it, you cannot see any progress. Many people argue that Iraqi Kurdistan now has an international airport, the roads are built up, there are many shopping malls, many tourist attractions in the mountainous regions for internal and foreign tourists and so on. But when you look at the people of Kurdistan, despite their many natural resources such as oil, they have a destroyed agricultural economy and no proper industrialised economy to improve the overall economic situation of the people and to create jobs. So I see no shining future for an independent Kurdistan. This is not because of the limitations of the Kurdish people but because of the class nature and ideology of the nationalist leaders. Q: So the solution, just like in other parts of the world, is to make revolution, a socialist revolution, and create a socialist state (in Kurdistan). Something that is no longer fashionable. What are the potential and material bases for such a revolution in the Kurdish regions? Do you think it might be possible that a communist force could emerge from the rubble of the "left" movement in Kurdistan? A: At the moment, Islamic fundamentalists; Arab, Kurdish, Assyrian and Turkmen nationalists; and Arab tribal heads have the upper hand in Iraq. They [tribal leaders and Islamic fundamentalists] have the initiative in the whole region with the exception of part of Syrian Kurdistan. But all are working within the framework of the existing capitalist relations. The Western powers and capitalism as a whole are in a mess themselves and are caught between these regional contradictions, or to put it in another way, they themselves are part of these contradictions. I don't see a revolutionary trend, i.e. one led by communists. From a historical point of view, it is clearer than ever before that there is no way out except through revolution. But given the situation in the international communist movement, there is no communist movement in the region that can shoulder such a heavy responsibility successfully. More than anything else, due to the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union and ultimately in China and the experience of these defeats, the communist movement is going through a state of sloppiness and lack of initiative. There has not been a real summation of the past communist movement in the region, and not only in Kurdistan. During this time the communist movement has been retreating. However, despite these unfavourable conditions, at the same time I can see the best opportunity, too. We are experiencing serious chaos in the imperialist system and the order they created after WW1. There is now a situation that makes it possible to put an end to this system. But without the existence of a communist movement and a correct political, ideological and organisational line that can never be achieved. Q: Do you mean there is no hope and nothing should be done? A: No. Historical conditions over the last three or four decades have shown that ideological and political line is even more decisive. It is clear that without revolutionary theory, it is not possible to make revolution. Marxism provides us with such a theory, but without its development and a revolutionary synthesis of our past victories and defeats, it will not be sufficient. What I'm trying to say is that the subjective elements are lagging behind the objective possibilities. Question: What are the potentially favourable elements for revolution in such difficult situations? A: The difficult situation itself is part of the material basis. I mean that the situation is crying out for change. It is possible to reverse the situation in which fundamentalists and imperialist powers have the initiative. The situation is such that the communist movement can intervene and change it. Of course this means a communist movement that has a correct line to analyse the situation correctly and turn it into its opposite. Q: Do you have anything else to say, any message for those who want to change the world but are shocked by the various reactionary forces and imperialists in the field? A: There is no middle way; you are either with the Islamic fundamentalists and imperialists on one side or with the people and communist forces or any freedom fighters who are against both anti-people poles on the other side. If there is a communist or revolutionary force that thinks that it is possible to stand in the middle, then we should ask which experiences in the past have shown this to be the case. The conscious individuals and forces should seriously decide whether they want to be part of the present unacceptable situation or want to create another world and break slavery's chains. Communists and the communist movement can change the course of history while they are reconstructing and revitalising themselves, just as they have done many times in the past.