It is stated that territorial disputes are often linked to wealth through the control of natural resources, but they can also be driven by sectarian, religious, ethnic and national security reasons. There are several border and land disputes in the world today, few had led to military conflicts and others could escalate to military confrontation at any given minute. Amanda Ellery explains that territorial disputes are known for being motivated by states’ desire to increase power; however, countries often choose to enter territorial disputes for normative reasons too. Whenever territories under dispute are valuable to countries in terms of natural resources, conflicts can be expected to escalate.
The escalation of conflicts also means a tragedy to human beings, specially those unprotected and vulnerable. The more recent conflict between the Iraqi government and officials of the semi-autonomous Kurdish region of Iraq (KRI) over the so-called disputed territories has devastated both the indigenous Assyrians and Yezidis. Vast areas of these territories are new claims as they were introduced by the empowered Kurds after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. The Kurds attempted all possible to capitalize from the rise of anarchy and lawlessness in Iraq, which weakened the central government.
Before we proceed, it is important to understand that northern Iraq is historic Assyria. This is an unequivocal historical fact. Over the last few centuries, the Kurds have increased their numbers by welcoming more Kurds from Turkey and Iran. In contrast, the indigenous Assyrians have continued to leave their historic homes and villages, because of continuous attacks on their lands and the Kurdish armed rebellion since 1961.
On Sept 25, 2017, the then KRI president and still the leader the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) Masoud Barzani, authorized an independence referendum of the semi-autonomous Kurdish region. About 93 percent of the Kurdish voters supported a Kurdish secession.[i] The case for carving the KRI and other alleged disputed territories from Iraq and establishing a Kurdistan on Assyrian lands has been propagated by Kurdish nationalists, historians and leaders for some time. According to MEMRI, on the one-hundredth anniversary of the Sykes-Picot Agreement (May 19, 1916), Barzani made a public speech in which he stated that the said agreement had failed and that Iraq is too sectarian and that “if partnership cannot be achieved, let us be brothers and good neighbors.”[ii] The Kurds have no intention to live in Iraq indefinitely. They are waiting for the right moment to transform the current regional 2009 draft constitution to a central law of the illusive Kurdistan.
The Iraqi Supreme Court ruled that Barzani’s referendum on Kurdish independence was unconstitutional. Following the vote, Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-’Abadi with the help of al-Hashd al-Sha’abi militias (Popular Mobilization Forces), Baghdad seized control of the alleged Kurdistani disputed territories, including the oil-rich city of Kirkuk,[iii] which the Kurds occupied after the withdrawal of ISIS.[iv] Barzani was forced to resign his position as the president of the KRI, replaced by his nephew, Nechirvan Barzani. Later, Nechirvan nominated his cousin, Masrour Barzani (Masoud’s son), to replace him as the prime minister of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). The Barzani family enterprise dominates political and economical life in the KRI capital of Arbil. The leadership in the KRI and the KRG has been a family affair since the escape of Mulla Mustafa Barzani (Masoud’s father) from Iran in 1946 after the collapse of the Kurdish Mahabad Republic and later entering Iraq. The Mahabad Republic lasted 11 months only. It is interesting to know that Masoud Barzani was born in Iran.
On June 12, 2008, the president of Washington Kurdish Institute, Dr. Najmaldin Karim, issued a statement[v] in which he criticized the United Nations Assistance Mission to Iraq (UNAMI) for its arbitrary recommendations regarding the issue of the disputed territories. Dr. Karim added, UNAMI has failed to address the core elements of Article 140 of the Iraq Constitution that commit the Iraqi government to reverse past racist policies through the process of normalization and referendum, which was negotiated and decided as a fair way to resolve the territorial issues. He then said that the issue is too important to the future of Kurdistan and Iraq as a whole to accept further equivocation and procrastination. He urged the leadership of Kurdistan Alliance and the KRG to stand firm against the deliberate encroachment upon historical and legitimate Kurdish rights. However, not a single Kurdish leader addresses the land disputes between the Kurdish newcomers and the indigenous Assyrians.
On June 13, 2008, United Press International (UPI) reported that UNAMI had released a report on June 5 regarding four districts in Iraq to serve as benchmarks for the Iraqi government to reach broader national reconciliation measures as part of the Iraqi Constitution. Article 140 of the Iraqi Constitution seeks to reverse ethnic policies implemented by Saddam Hussein. Masoud Barzani issued a statement that the UN report was not a suitable essence for solving the problems and that it runs contrary to the constitutional demands of applying Article 140.[vi] However, we must understand that many important articles of the 2005 Iraqi Constitution were written ambiguously by non-Iraqis which opened the doors for personal interpretations later on. In its report, the UN said that the KRG can administer the cities of Akre (Aqra) and Makhmour in the Nineveh province while Baghdad would control Hamdaniya, also in Nineveh, and Mandali in Diyala province. Kurdish leaders sent a letter to the UN special envoy to Iraq, Staffan de Mistura, expressing their displeasure with the report. Kurdish lawmaker Arez Abdullah added that the report did not “respect the will of Kurds concerning disputed areas.” It is not understood what Abdullah is trying to say since the Hamdaniya District was historically inhabited by Assyrians and Yezidis and few other smaller religious groups, but never had a Kurdish presence.
Why are the Kurdish officials claiming that the historic Assyrian Nineveh Plain (al-Hamdaniya, Tel Kaif and al-Shaikhan Districts) is a Kurdistani disputed territory? Assyrian lawmakers continued their efforts to prevent the Kurdish accession of the Nineveh Plain and other illegal practices by the Kurdish leaders. In a letter dated April 25, 2008, from the Assyrian General Conference to Ban Ki-moon, United Nations Secretary-General, the Assyrian group expressed concerns about the mission of de Mistura and the Kurdish pressure and activities. The group suggested to the UN to do the followings:
- Work for normalization of the situation under international supervision and protection of the United Nations according to the census in 1957 before holding any referendum in the northern governorates of Iraq.
- Consideration of the Assyrian General Conference, demand and support the establishment of the Assyrian region in northern Iraq.
- Taking into consideration the fact that the Nineveh Governorate and surroundings are linked to central administration.
- Taking into consideration the current Duhok Governorate was one of the administrative districts of Nineveh Governorate.
- The inclusion of the Duhok Governorate in the disputed areas as it was subjected to demographic and geographic changes that negatively impacted the Assyrian national presence and the issue of the province is still not resolved.[vii]
Efforts by the Assyrian and some non-Assyrian groups to protect the Assyrian regions continued. On October 21, 2017, Dr. Salim Abd Allah al-Jiburi, head of the Iraqi Parliament, forwarded a request from Imad Youkhana, Deputy Secretary General of the Assyrian Democratic Movement (ADM), to the Iraqi Federal Court, requesting clarification on several issues related to the so-called disputed territories. First, he requested a definition for the term disputed territories. Second, he asked what standards were applied to identify regions that were disputed. Third, he inquired about the entities that would decide those territories.[viii] In the words of Dr. Michael Youash, this issue has not been contested in formal political processes but, rather, as part of a “facts-on-the-ground-realpolitik-power-contest” between Baghdad and Arbil.
The drift between Baghdad and Arbil continues today at the expense of the most vulnerable indigenous Assyrians and Yezidis in northern Iraq. The alleged disputed territories is a very vital point that the Kurds try to keep on the negotiation table while they look ahead to the future and their elusive state. Three regions in Iraq the Kurds desire the most are: the oil-rich Kirkuk[ix]; the Nineveh Plain with its newly discovered large oil reserves; and finally, Yezidis’ Sinjar, further to the west, in an effort to create a wide border between the KRI and Syria. Currently, that border outlet is narrow through Nohadra (Duhok), but the Kurds desire to enlarge it through the annexation of Sinjar to create a wide corridor between the Kurds in northern Iraq and those in Syria toward a Greater Kurdistan.
On June 12, 2014, following the 2014 Northern Iraq offensive, during which ISIS secured control of Tikrit, northern Baghdad, and nearby areas in Syria, the Iraqi army evacuated Kirkuk, and the Kurdish Peshmerga occupied the city. More Kurds were allowed to enter the city in an attempt to change Kirkuk’s demographic in anticipation of future census and elections. We must also consider the followings: First, the Peshmerga confiscated the arms of the indigenous Assyrians and Yezidis only weeks before the invasion of ISIS claiming that they, the Peshmerga, will protect them. Second, as ISIS initiated their attack on Nineveh Plain, the peshmerga withdrew without any real fight leaving the indigenous Assyrians and Yezidis in the region under the mercy of ISIS.
Usama al-Nujaifi, a Sunni Arab from Mosul, Nineveh Governorate, served as Minister of Industry in the 2005–2006 Iraqi Transitional Government. He later won a seat in the 2010 Iraqi parliamentary elections. While heading a parliamentary committee to assess the humanitarian situation in Nineveh Governorate, he criticized the conduct of Governor Duraid Kashmoula (governor of the Nineveh Province 2004–2009), stating, “We have seen no trace of the huge sums of money said to have been appropriated for the province and could gather no idea on how they were spent.” In October 2008, he declared that the 2008 attacks on the Christians in Mosul were carried out by the Kurdish Peshmerga and intelligence operatives.[x] On May 17, 2009, al-Nujaifi asked that Kurdish militias (Peshmerga) be removed from the non-Kurdish districts of Sinjar, Zamar, Telkaif, Shekhan, Ba’asheqa, and Makhmor in the Nineveh Province. He stated that the Kurdish Peshmerga terrorizes the inhabitants, imprisons and threaten the people, and transfers those they apprehend to other areas in the three Kurdish-controlled governorates.[xi] However, a weak central government in Baghdad handed the KRG leaders the opportunities to dig in in all the new territories they controlled illegally.
A human rights report asserted that when the Peshmerga joined with the Iraqi Army and al-Hashd al-Sha’abi (PMU) to fight IS (ISIS), they used a special pattern of destroying buildings, homes, and even entire villages during the fighting, especially those villages that fell within the so-called disputed territories. The Kurdish leaders understand that the displaced people who were chased out by IS from their homes in those territories would not be able to return to their homes if those homes were destroyed. These leaders also understand that any rebuilding would take years, if not decades, during which time many of the original inhabitants would be relocated and settled in other regions or even countries. Thus, the plans by Kurds to move in and claim those territories would have less opposition. The report identified seventeen villages in Kirkuk and four in the Nineveh Governorate that were unlawfully demolished between September 2014 and May 2016. The report went on to state, “In a further 62 villages that researchers were not able to visit, satellite imagery provides evidence of destruction after Kurdish security forces recaptured them, but a lack of witness accounts did not allow for definitive conclusions as to the reasons and responsibility for the destruction.”[xii]
Other observers, like Congressman Wolf, agreed with the analysis that the political struggle between the Iraqi government and the KRG over the alleged disputed territories is crucial for the displaced population.[xiii] Assyrians in Iraq and elsewhere fear a return to these areas and to relive the nightmarish battles over the disputed lands. Security remains the main deterrent preventing the return of the displaced populations and refugees. The Nineveh Plain is under the control of various militias and armed forces, including Iraqi security forces, the KDP Peshmerga, PMF Brigade 30, and PMF Babylon Brigade 50, and a smaller defensive Assyrian Nineveh Plain Protection Unit (NPU). The NPU, on its own, does not have the resources to compete with the Kurdish and the nongovernmental Arab militias.
The indigenous Assyrians, Yezidis, Mandeans, and other minority ethnic and religious groups do not possess the military power, creating a struggle to pass any reasonable solution in regards to the future of these smaller indigenous communities. The October 2003 Chaldo-Assyrian National Conference in Baghdad agreed on a reliant direct link between the planned new Nineveh Plain governorate with the central government for financial sustainability. Shortly after the conclusion of the conference, the KRG leadership entitled the Nineveh Plain as part of the alleged disputed territories and began, first, coercing the Assyrian religious leaders, who had previously agreed to the outcomes of the October Conference, to back out and reject the recommendations and second, began to rephrase the language of their draft KRI constitution to include many of the districts of the Nineveh Plain as part of the KRI region and included the Nineveh Plain as part of the so-called disputed territories.
The Nineveh Plain was eligible to become a governorate based on the initial approval of the Iraqi Council of Ministers in 2014 and in accordance with Article 125 of the Iraqi Constitution. It was the invasion of ISIS of Nineveh that placed the plan on the back burner. ISIS invasion benefited the Kurds since not a single town, village or region within the KRI was attacked by ISIS.
Five years have passed since the defeat of ISIS in Iraq. Yet not a single Assyrian village has been fully rehabilitated and re-inhabited. Many homes remain destroyed and/or deserted and many towns and villages still lack the basic and essential services that were destroyed by ISIS. There is a reason why the KRG delays any discussion on the rebuilding of the abandoned villages and towns in the Nineveh Plain. The longer it takes to reconstruct, the less are the chances that the original occupants would return. Meanwhile, the Peshmerga and Shia militias continue to assert themselves in the Nineveh Plain. From one side, the KRG fuels the alleged disputed territories’ argument with the central government in Baghdad. On the other, the KDP and Sunni Arabs within the Nineveh Governorate deliberate on the future of Nineveh Plain despite the fact that the region was never a part of the so-called disputed territories or part of Article 140 of the 2005 Iraqi Constitution. This was confirmed by the decisions of the Iraqi Federal Court and by a UN report in 2007.
The indigenous Assyrians and Yezidis deserve to live free, in peace and prosperity on their ancestral lands along the rest of the Iraqi people. The United Nations declaration on human rights and the rights of indigenous people must be applied to the indigenous Assyrians and Yezidis in Iraq. However, the apathetic leaders in Baghdad and their land grabbing counterparts in Arbil make it impossible for the indigenous groups to survive peacefully on their ancestral lands.
[i] “Iraqi Kurds decisively back independence in referendum,”BBC News, September 27, 2017.
[ii] MEMRI, “Kurdish President Barzani: The Sykes-Picot Agreement Has Failed; It Is Time to Establish a Kurdish State,” Special Dispatch 6444, May 23, 2016, https://www.memri.org/reports, accessed February 27, 2019.
[iii] Wikipedia, s.v., “2018 Iraqi parliamentary election,” accessed April 24, 2020.
[iv] “Iraq Supreme Court rules Kurdish referendum unconstitutional,” BBC,November 20, 2017.
[v] WKI Press Release, June 12, 2008.
[vi] The Kurdish Globe.
[vii] Ishaia Isho to Ban Ki-moon, April 25, 2008, Assyrian General Conference. http://www.assyriangc.com/9.html, accessed December 10, 2020.
[viii] Frederick Aprim. “The Betrayal of the Powerless”. Xlibris Press. 2020. Appendix B
[ix] According to the 1957 Iraqi census of before Arabization, Kirkuk was 40 percent Turkoman and 35 percent Kurdish. George Packer, “The Next Iraqi War?” The New Yorker, October 4, 2004. 64.
[x] Wikipedia, s.v., “Osama al-Nujaifi,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_al-Nujaifi.
[xi] Iraq News Network, http://www.aliraqnews.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=24518.
[xii] “Marked With An ‘X’ – Iraqi Kurdish Forces’ Destruction of Villages, Homes in Conflict with ISIS,” Human Rights Watch, November 13, 2016, https://www.hrw.org/report.
[xiii] Helen Malko, a study titled, “Heritage Wars: A Cultural Genocide in Iraq.” Published in, Cultural Genocide: Law, Politics, and Global Manifestations, edited by Jeffrey S. Bachman, Routledge, 2019.
The challenges lie ahead Ankara’s decision to normalize relations with Cairo and Damascus
Although Egypt and Syria are at the bottom of the list of states with which Turkey intends to reconcile, the 10-year conflict with the two mentioned countries, which is accompanied by conflict and bloodshed in Syria, is on the verge of ending, and Turkey’s relations with Egypt and Syria are returning to normal.
Of course, the recent progress is due to the efforts of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the president of Turkey; Especially after the negotiators failed to close the last case of incompatibility between the two sides. The process of reconciliation began in 2021, in the city of Al-Ala in Saudi Arabia, and since then, Cairo and Ankara continued to strive and innovate in order to achieve reconciliation and compromise, and finally achieved positive and significant results.
However, the reconciliation between the two states was not at the leadership level; Until Qatar provided the ground for the meeting of Abdul Fattah Al-Sisi and Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Doha during the opening ceremony of the World Cup. The sitting of the Secretary General of the United Nations between the presidents of the two countries was not aimed at keeping them away from each other, and it seems that the Egyptians and the Turks had prepared for this occasion a few weeks ago, and the opening ceremony of the World Cup was held as a tribute to the mediation of Qatar, as the appointment was selected.
Regardless of political compliments, the reconciliation of Egypt and Turkey is very important; Because the continuation of tension between the two countries can lead to many risky developments. Relations between Egypt and Turkey became strained after the overthrow of the government of Mohamed Morsi in 2013. At that time, it became clear to political observers that this inconsistency will last for a long time and will not end soon; Especially since the late president of Egypt tried to run his country with the mentality of a one party rule. For this reason, the solidarity of the angry protesters with the security institutions played a central role in changing the situation in this state and marked the end of the Muslim Brotherhood government. Then, the Muslim Brotherhood made Istanbul its alternative capital and began its plans and efforts to return to power from there. This caused a crisis in the relations between Egypt and Turkey, and with the passage of time, the incompatibility between the two states increased.
However, in the past year and a half, the governments of Turkey and Egypt have held several meetings in order to resolve the dispute and end the disputed cases, and they were able to achieve significant successes in terms of security and media. Ankara more or less stopped the activity of the Egyptian opposition in Turkish territory, but the reconciliation between the two sides was not complete and the disagreement over how to manage the Libyan war crisis and the dispute over territorial waters in the Mediterranean remained unresolved.
In the case of Libya, Turkey supports one side of the conflict and Egypt supports the other side. Libya plays a vital role for Egypt in terms of security, and it is an important market for Turkey in terms of economy. In addition, Libya has many debts to pay to Turkey since the Gaddafi government.
On the other hand, after the discovery of gas fields in the Mediterranean waters, which are believed to contain a large amount of energy, there was a dispute between Egypt, Turkey and Greece over territorial waters in the Mediterranean, and the aforementioned states have not been able to find a solution to overcome this challenge.
The issue of ending the tension between Egypt and Turkey is very important, because achieving this goal may help end the war in Libya, and this in itself is reason enough to be optimistic about the current efforts for reconciliation between the two states. However, the price of this reconciliation will be paid by the opposition affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood outside of Egypt.
Of course, the path of reconciliation between Damascus and Ankara is extremely chaotic and risky. It is so difficult to reach the stage of reconciliation between the two states that, according to Erdogan, if he himself goes to Damascus, he will not be able to find a quick solution to end this complex crisis. Turkey and Syria have been fighting indirectly for more than 10 years. In addition, several military powers, including the forces of the Islamic Republic, Russia, the United States, foreign militias, the remnants of ISIS and Al-Qaeda, the separatist Kurds of Turkey, and the Syrian armed opposition continue to invade Syria.
Meanwhile, the inability of Damascus to control parts of the Syrian territory has created a power vacuum in different parts of the country. Millions of Syrian refugees live abroad; In addition, millions of other citizens who have been forced to leave their homes have sought refuge in areas far from the war and are still displaced.
Therefore, any solution that is presented to end the crisis should consider the above points. Currently, all sides want the war in Syria to end, but the path to achieving this goal remains elusive.
Protest emerges as a mixed blessing for World Cup host Qatar
Protest on the soccer pitch has proven to be a mixed blessing for World Cup host Qatar, exposing double standards in the Gulf state’s position as well as that of its critics.
Qatar embraced protest when it supported Qatari policies, such as the Gulf state’s increasingly assertive denunciation of double standards in Western criticism of discrimination against LGBT people or its refusal to establish diplomatic relations with Israel in the absence of a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
However, protesters and foreign media quickly encountered the limits of Qatari tolerance and notions of freedom of expression when they touched on politically sensitive issues, ranging from support for LGBT rights to solidarity with demonstrators in Iran, who have defied a brutal crackdown by security forces in more than two months of anti-government manifestations.
As a result, the debate on double standards at times amounted to the kettle calling the pot black.
That is not to question the legitimacy of criticism levelled by Qatar and its critics at each other. However, it is to note that both parties’ credibility is in question because of their inconsistencies and failures to put their own houses in order.
“On one level, the World Cup is unfolding smoothly. On another, we go from crisis to crisis,” said a journalist covering the tournament for a major Western news organisation.
Photographers were often on the frontline as Qatari authorities stopped them from snapping pictures of security forces preventing fans from wearing clothing to matches or taking into stadiums paraphernalia that signalled support for Iranian protesters or LGBT rights.
‘The real test case will be when the United States plays Iran. That could be the crescendo in the clash over what protesters and media can and cannot do,” said another journalist.
The November 29 match is likely the World Cup’s most politically charged game, with talks to revive the 2015 international agreement that curbed the Islamic republic’s nuclear programme all but dead and Iraq-mediated negotiations with archrival Saudi Arabia suspended.
Iran accuses the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel of inciting the sustained anti-government protests.
The US Soccer Federation joined the fray with Iran ahead of the two nations’ World Cup match when it briefly displayed Iran’s national flag on social media without the emblem of the Islamic Republic, saying the move was in support of protesters in Iran.
Iran accused the federation of removing the name of God from their national flag and said it would complain to FIFA. However, US Soccer later restored the Islamic republic’s flag on social media.
Meanwhile, Qatari nationals, intending to protest against Western double standards in criticism of the Gulf state, didn’t encounter problems entering the stadium to watch Germany’s group stage match against Spain.
During the game, Qataris displayed pictures of former German national team player Mesut Özil, a German-born descendant of Turkish immigrants, while covering their mouths in protest against German double standards.
Mr. Özil quit the German team after becoming a target of racist abuse and a scapegoat for Germany’s early World Cup exit in 2018.
The Qatari demonstration was in response to Germany’s team covering their mouths at a group photo in advance of an earlier match against Japan in protest against FIFA president Gianni Infantino’s banning players from wearing One Love bands during games.
In the same vein, prominent Qataris wore pro-Palestinian armbands to the Germany Japan match to counter the pro-LGBT One Love band sported by German Interior Minister Nancy Faeser during the game.
Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, signalled the Gulf state’s greater assertiveness in countering criticism when he lamented some three weeks before the kickoff of the World Cup that Qatar had been “subjected to an unprecedented campaign,” scrutiny, and scorn “that no host country has faced.”
In an indication that human rights, labour, and LGBT groups may be losing leverage, the emir said that “we initially dealt with the matter in good faith, and even considered some of criticism as positive and useful… (But) it soon became clear that the campaign tends to continue and expand to include fabrications and double standards that were so ferocious that it has unfortunately prompted many people to question real reasons and motives behind this campaign.”
The critics’ problem is their past failure to tackle with equal ferocity issues of human rights, prejudice, and bigotry in the run-up to the 2018 Russian World Cup, as well as to separate the wheat from the chafe by distancing themselves from criticism of Qatar that was laced with bias and racism.
In doing so, critics are as much their own worst enemy as they have been drivers of social change in Qatar.
By allowing Qatar to deflect criticism by calling into question critics’ credibility, activists have enabled the Gulf state to take its counteroffensive to the next level.
A week into the World Cup, Qatar was reviewing, according to the Financial Times, its substantial investments in London after the city’s transport authority suspended advertising from the Gulf state because of the controversies over worker and LGBT rights.
Qatari investments include London’s landmark Harrods department store; The Shard, an iconic 72-storey skyscraper; and Canary Wharf, part of the city’s central business district. Qatar also owns Chelsea Barracks, the Savoy and Grosvenor House hotels, 22 per cent of Sainsbury’s supermarkets, six per cent of Barclays bank, and 20 per cent of Heathrow airport.
“Countries like…Qatar…view their investments as strategic bribes to mute criticism and resist reforms,” said Radha Stirling, a London-based lawyer who represents expatriates in the Gulf who run into legal difficult
To be fair, Qatar was one of 11 countries in the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia that were banned in 2019 from advertising by Transport for London on the grounds of human rights violations. Nevertheless, the agency allowed some Qatari advertising promoting the Gulf state as a tourist destination until last week’s World Cup kickoff, when it decided to implement the ban fully.
Even so, the list reinforced the notion of double standards by failing to include China at the height of its brutal crackdown on Turkic Muslims in the northwestern province of Xinjiang; Russia that was annexing Ukrainian territory, repressing LGBT people, and attempting to assassinate its critics at home and abroad; and Israel with its increasingly racial policies towards Palestinians.
Qatar is likely to be the first of numerous rights-focussed Middle Eastern battlegrounds, with countries like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt hosting or preparing bids to host multiple major sporting events, including Asian Cup competitions, the 2030 World Cup, and the 2036 Summer Olympics.
The bids constitute a rich and legitimate hunting ground for human, worker, and LBGT rights activists. However, their effectiveness will, to a significant extent, depend on their ability to put their own house in order.
Iran on the Threshold of Another Syrianization
In the last few years, a new word has been added to the political vocabulary “Syrianization”. This new word means turning a country into a land without a government, in the common sense of a burnt, lawless land, every part of which is under the control of an armed mafia group.
The leaders of the Islamic Republic, who are now shaken by the mass movement of the Iranian people, are warning to save themselves that Iran may also be destroyed. In other words, our choice is limited to living or half-living under the rule of jurisprudential tyranny or falling into the second Syria.
How did Syria become Syrian? In the beginning, nearly 12 years ago, a group of Syrian youths came to the street in Daraa city to protest the continued suffocation, the spread of unemployment and the darkness of their life horizons. This demonstration was completely peaceful. The protesters didn’t set fire to anything and didn’t shout any incendiary slogans. If Syria had a government in the conventional sense that day, the wise way to respond to these protests would be to send a delegation from the central government in Damascus to listen to the protesters and find ways to fulfill at least part of their demands.
But the government of Bashar al-Assad, the president, was not a normal government. This was a government monopolized by a military-security-commercial minority, which itself was a minority within the framework of the Nasiri religious minority, which is also a minority in Shia Gholat, which is also a minority in the Islamic religion. Thus, accepting the Daraa protesters as equal citizens was not acceptable for the minority in question. In the political sphere of Assad and his Baath Arab Socialist Party, the government commands and the people, who are degraded to the level of subjects, obey. In this world, the answer to protest is bullets or prison.
However, the bloodbath that occurred in the valley did not end the protests. Within a few days, the Syrian people’s movement reached Hama, Aleppo, Sweida and Damascus. This time, some prominent figures of the Baathist regime demanded a political response to the protests in secret meetings with the regime leaders. But a regime that knows nothing but lies and repression could not take advantage of the tools offered by politics to solve society’s problems and get out of crises.
At a critical stage in 2012, Bashar al-Assad thought to save the entire Baathist regime by leaving the scene. The mood of those days was described by Brigadier General Hossein Hamdani, one of the officers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran who was sent to Syria, in a long conversation, a year before his death in Syria. According to Hamdani, they packed their bags to leave in Damascus because at that time a part of the Syrian army had broken away from the Assad regime and hoped to conquer the capital by establishing the “Free Syrian Army”.
Although it can be said that Hamedani has exaggerated the importance of Tehran’s involvement, there is no doubt that the message of the leader of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to Bashar al-Assad was not ineffective in changing the opinion of the dictator of Damascus to leave the scene. Khamenei’s message was simple: stay and resist! We give whatever you want!
In the decade since that day, the Islamic Republic has spent more than 20 billion dollars in Syria, according to experts’ estimates. Tehran has also created several military units to fight against the Syrian people and for the benefit of Bashar al-Assad: the Fatemiyoun Brigade, the Zainbiyoun Brigade, and the units of the Morteza Ali movement belong to this category. Along with them, units from Lebanon’s Hezbollah, another branch of Khamenei’s proxy forces, have also fought in Syria. Iranian “volunteers”, who are called “defenders of the shrine”, have also been and are present alongside Syrian, Afghan, Pakistani and Iraqi mercenaries.
To add to the chaos in the country, Assad released more than 20,000 imprisoned Islamic “terrorists” to open a new front against the freedom-loving protesters. It was these freed terrorists who quickly participated in the establishment of the Islamic Caliphate in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS). At the same time, Assad promised the more than 1.5 million Kurds who had lost their Syrian citizenship that he would restore full citizenship to them. In this way, a part of the Syrian Kurds under the influence of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), whose main base is in Turkey, entered the battle against the Syrian freedom groups.
But all these measures were unsuccessful in suppressing the Syrian people’s movement. In 2014, Tehran made contacts with Russia to push Vladimir Putin into war in Syria. These calls came to fruition and Putin assigned the Russian Air Force to suppress in Syria. The price of this service to Bashar al-Assad was a 45-year contract according to which Russia obtained an air-sea base on the Syrian coast of the Mediterranean and was able to expand its military presence to that strategic sea for the first time after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Putin used the same tactic in Syria that he used in Chechnya: bombing cities across the country. Thus, Aleppo, the second most populated city in Syria, like Grozny, the capital of Chechnya, became a mountain of rubble.
Gradually, “Syrianization” was formed as a political-historical concept. Destruction means widespread devastation in a country where half of its population has either become displaced and refugees or has become homeless within its own land. “Syrianization” means maintaining control of a part of the capital and fighting with dozens, or perhaps hundreds, of other armed groups across the country to formally recognize a regime that no longer exists. “Syrianization” also has another meaning: the division of two facts of a country into the sphere of influence of several foreign powers. Right now, part of Syria is controlled by Turkey, while the other part is controlled by the United States under the guise of its Kurdish allies. A third part is controlled by Russia and the Islamic Republic has the fourth part in the desert bordering Iraq. The fifth sector is also dominated by Druze armed forces with the help of Jordan Hashemi. Bashar al-Assad and what he calls himself the Syrian government are displaying their shadow legitimacy in a sixth section in Damascus.
Thus, the joint plan of Bashar Assad, the Baath Party, part of the Nasiri (Alawi) minority, Ayatollah Khamenei, Major General Qassem Soleimani, Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan are being destroyed. But another actor has played a role in this ominous show: the leadership of the Syrian people’s protest movement. This leadership was never able to present a clear strategy to gain power. This leadership lured the Western powers with mouth-watering promises and thought it was done taking pictures with the French president and receiving a message from the US secretary of state – endless seminars in more than 30 capitals, from Tokyo to Ottawa, where the real political work is done and took the cities and villages of Syria. A group of exiled figures who had been around Syria for years suddenly came under the global spotlight as the future leaders of Syria. Their work was consecutive interviews with Western media, often in suites of 5-star hotels in Paris, London, New York, etc. It is interesting here that many of the leaders of the Baathist regime, who were cut off from Bashar al-Assad, joined this shaved leadership in order to compensate for their lost political virginity and to take a share if there is a reconciliation.
“Syrianization” should be considered a new type of tragedy-comedy of human societies in which hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of idealistic, sincere and selfless people come to the field to overthrow an autocratic, and corrupt system, hoping to build a free and law-based society and justice. But, in the end, they are reduced to the level of a tool for the profit of the alleged leaders on the one hand and the battle of foreign powers on the other.
“Syrianization” could not have become a reality without Bashar al-Assad, Ali Khamenei, Vladimir Putin, Barack Obama and the ignorant or profit-seeking leaders of the popular movement. Today, Syria, this stateless land, is a breeding ground for the worst elements that threaten a modern society: various terrorists, looters, commercial and religious mafias and mercenaries. To rebuild this ruined country, more than three trillion dollars of capital is needed, a capital that will never be collected without the establishment of a government in its normal sense. In this way, Syria is faced with the question “came first the chicken or the egg”: capital comes first or the normal government?
Let’s go back to the propaganda of Khamenei and his accomplices about the “Syrianization” of Iran. At first glance, the presence of some agents of Syrianization, including Khamenei himself and his mentor, Putin, a part of the Revolutionary Guards and mercenaries of the Islamic Republic in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, makes the danger of Syrianizing Iran appear serious.
But several important factors, I think, protect Iran against the risk of becoming Syrian. The first factor is the deep roots of Iran as a nation. Before 1948, Syria never existed as an independent nation-state and was always a collection of ethnic, geographical and cultural entities within the framework of various empires from Chaldea and Assyria to Rome, Byzantium, Ottoman and finally, France. On the other hand, Iran has passed through the crucibles of the constitutional movement and has become familiar with the concept of freedom within the framework of the law during 150 years, although intermittently, before Ayatollah Khomeini took office. The role of the institution of the Kingdom of Iran in strengthening the national solidarity of Iranians cannot be ignored either.
Most importantly, the current movement of the Iranian people, unlike the protest movement of the Syrian people, which had a religious undertone – with the strong presence of the “Muslim Brotherhood” – does not have a religious or sectarian aspect, and is a movement that goes beyond religious, professional and ethnic concepts and demands a return to the path of constitutionalism. It means creating a society based on the law and serving the citizens. In recent months, the field leaders of this movement have displayed an encouraging maturity and political tact and have shown that, unlike the Syrian protesters, they are not waiting for a “green light” from Paris, London and Washington. Thus, those who want to help this movement must enter into the game with the conditions and regulations of this movement, not to impose their own conditions and regulations on it.
Today, Iran seeks to end the rule of Syria builders like Khamenei. Those who have played a role in Syrianizing Syria cannot scare us from becoming Syrian.
Pakistan’s Governance and Security Challenges: The Way Ahead
Governance and security are the two key areas where states work and progress and lead towards the excellence. Pakistan as...
How does ‘1997 CHT peace accord’ pave the pay of ‘Peace and prosperity’ in Bangladesh’s CHT?
To put an end to the brutal confrontations between the government troops and the tribes and hillsmen of the Chittagong...
Strong will to enhance bilateral relations between Serbia and Pakistan
Although the Republic of Serbia and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan are two sovereigns, independent states, with different cultures, religions,...
Airports and harbours prepare to slash emissions as the greening of transport accelerates
By Michael Allan If the European Union is to meet its net-zero targets and become a climate-neutral economy by 2050, the...
Americans are outraged: US has given about $54B of assistance to Ukraine. The EU only 16B
On a broadcast of the Fox Business Network’s “Kennedy,” Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) said he will not continue to support...
Quiet panic: “We don’t know how oil market is going to function after a certain date”
“How will the market react to the attempts by politicians to rig supply and price?” asks “The Financial Times” in...
Pakistan On Its Way to Promote Interfaith Harmony
People from various cultural, racial, and religious backgrounds live in Pakistan. 96.28 percent of the country consists of a Muslim...
Europe3 days ago
More Europeans will perish from energy crisis than Ukraine war death toll
Energy4 days ago
USA-KSA Energy War and Global Energy Crisis
Energy4 days ago
Analyzing China Solar Energy for Poverty Alleviation (SEPAP) Program
Economy4 days ago
Why the burden on business women to ‘do it all’ must stop
Defense3 days ago
Rostec State Corporation Promoting Development, Manufacturing and Exporting Military High-Tech Products
Russia3 days ago
Digging Down Into ‘Putin’s Corruption’
Finance3 days ago
4 Best Tips How To Write A Literary Analysis Essay
Americas3 days ago
U.S. has a vital interest in avoiding going to war for a lie