“AINA Is Doing The Assyrian Cause No Good 
By Telling Lies About The KDP And The PUK”

By Lise Storm Grundon,
BA and Student of Political Science at the University of Copenhagen 

(The Kurdistan Observer) August 26, 2001. In the past couple of months Assyrian attacks
on especially Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and also to a lesser extent on the Patriotic
Union of Kurdistan (PUK) have been printed on the Assyrian International News Agency’s
homepage.

The articles more or less claim that the Assyrian population in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region is
victim of discrimination, human rights abuses and so forth. Moreover, the articles argue that
the KDP and the PUK has lost support from the international community, and that the KDP
is trying to consolidate a “homogeneous” Kurdistan.

The contents of these articles comes as a great shock to me as a soon-to-be master in political
science with the Kurds as my main field. When the political leaders in the Iraqi Kurdistan
Region decided to hold parliamentary elections in 1992 it was in an effort to establish a
democracy in the Region. Accordingly, all political parties in the region were invited to
participate in the election, which was declared free and fair by the international observers
present at the polling. In fact, because of the small size of the Turkmen and Assyrian
communities, the Kurdish politicians agreed to set aside five seats for these minority
candidates. Had this not been done there would not have been any representatives of the
Turkmen and Assyrian parties in parliament. The Turkmen decided to boycott the election
after consultations with Turkey, but the Assyrians accepted the arrangement. Had it been the
aim of the Iraqi Kurds to take over the land of the Assyrians or to treat the Assyrians as
second-class citizens such an arrangement would have been outright stupid. However, what
the Iraqi Kurds aimed at building – and what still aim at building – is a democratic Iraqi
Kurdistan Region.

In one of the articles AINA admits that since the great uprising in 1991 the Assyrians have
been able to work in politics, form parties, open offices and produce all kinds of publications
freely. However, AINA claims that these freedoms are strictly contingent upon following
what they label the “Sorani-Bedanani political line”.

It is evident that many Assyrians are members of either the KDP or the PUK. In the current
cabinet as many as three ministers are of Assyrian background. However, many Assyrians
prefer to become members of strictly Assyrian parties and that is very understandable. It
must be underlined, though, that it is very possible to enter parliament, become a member of
the local branches of government, or becoming a mayor without being member of the KDP
and the PUK. As stated above, Assyrian parties did gain seats in parliament in the 1992
elections. The main problem for the Assyrian political parties is not that they are not given
the same rights as other political parties in the region, because they are given the same rights.
No, their main problem is the size of the Assyrian community. Because of the proportionate
nature of the electoral system, the political parties are fair and square awarded seats in
parliament according to the proportion of votes the party receives at the poll.
Since the Assyrian community makes out such a small proportion of the population in the
Iraqi Kurdistan Region, it is very difficult for the Assyrian parties to gain a seat in
parliament. The Assyrian chances of winning a seat in parliament without a special
arrangement as in 1992 would be significantly heightened, though, if the Assyrians
participated with only one party instead of two. 

The same accounts for the municipal elections. One Assyrian party would heighten the
Assyrian chances of winning seats because vote-splitting would be avoided. The Assyrian
parties were invited to participate in the municipal elections on 26 May, 2001. Since AINA
is referring to the fact that the Assyrian Democratic Movement considered boycotting the
election AINA must certainly be aware that the Assyrian parties were given the right to
participate in the election. Accordingly, their rights were not discriminated.

AINA further claims that the elections were “jury-rigged”, and that was why the ADM
considered boycotting the election. Rigging elections is not that easy, and in this case it
would be a pure waste of time for the KDP. In the areas in which the election was held the
Kurdish population was the vast majority. Only in a few towns were the Assyrian
community close to a majority (they were in majority in none, however, in the district of
Ainkawa in Arbil they are in majority). Accordingly, there was no doubt that the Kurdish
parties would win the majority of the seats. Undergoing a huge effort in order to prevent the
Assyrian parties from winning a few seats would be ridiculous, it would be of absolutely no
importance to the KDP or any other Kurdish party. Moreover, the municipal elections were
declared free and fair also by the Kurdistan Communist Party, which stated that “The
Politburo of the Kurdistan Communist Party would like to take this opportunity to express
our satisfaction with the organization and running of the recent municipal elections and to
extend our congratulations to the winning candidates. We view these elections as a positive
experience and a step forward in the efforts to create a democratic system in the region.”

It was in other words not only the KDP that was satisfied with the elections. So was also the
Kurdistan Communist Party, which has not been in conflict with the Assyrian community.
The KCP is certainly not a group of land-hungry politicians striding to expropriate Assyrian
land. Such a policy is totally against the party principles. What the KCP correctly points out,
the election was an important step in the right direction towards democracy. It is clear to
everyone, that the Iraqi Kurdistan Region is not a consolidated democracy yet. Transition to
democracy and the consolidation of democracy is a long-term process. It takes a lot of efforts
of all parties involved if the project is to be a success.. It seems to me, that AINA is not
making an effort to establish a democratic Iraqi Kurdistan Region. On the contrary, AINA is
doing its best to work against the process by arguing for a boycott of the municipal elections
in May and by questioning the fairness of the elections after they were held, as well as
questioning the fairness of the 1992 parliamentary election even though it has been
internationally recognised as free and fair. 

Moreover, AINA not only claims that the Assyrians were discriminated against in the 1992
parliamentary election and the municipal elections this year, AINA also claims that ordinary
Assyrians are being persecuted by the Iraqi Kurds. AINA claims that Assyrians have been
victims in “tribal” fights between the KDP and the PKK, and “tribal” fights between the
KDP and the PUK.

About the claimed so-called tribal fights between the KDP and the PKK. By signing the
Washington Agreement the KDP obligated itself to remove the PKK from the Iraqi
Kurdistan Region. The PKK and the KDP have never been “best friends”. The KDP does not
agree with the methods and aims of the PKK, and accordingly the PKK has attacked
ordinary people in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region as well as KDP representatives. The PKK
claimed that the KDP are traitors because they are not fighting for an independent “Great
Kurdistan” but primarily for the Kurds in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region. Moreover, the two
parties do not agree on the means with which to achieve the aims. The KDP is in favour of a
peaceful solution via dialogue whereas the PKK prefers violent methods such as terrorist
attacks on Turkish sights and sights within the Iraqi Kurdistan Region. And for the record,
the KDP is not a paramilitary organisation. It never has been, and judging from the past and
the present it is hardly believable to be one in future. 

The fighting between the KDP and the PKK is in other words not sparked by tribal
disagreements but by the fact that the PKK is a totalitarian organisation that does not accept
any parties or organisations that do not share its opinions.

Secondly, the fighting between the KDP and the PUK was much more a power struggle than
a tribal disagreement. Moreover, the “civil war” between the two parties ended years ago.
The KDP and the PUK are now largely cooperating, and they also agree on the necessity of
holding parliamentary elections as soon as possible in order to establish one united
parliament for the people of the Iraqi Kurdistan Region.

In one of the articles AINA cites an Amnesty International report from 1995. The report
states that there is reason to believe that security apparatus of both the KDP and the PUK
have assassination squads receiving orders from senior party officials, and that these squads
could not have existed and operated without the knowledge of the party leaders. AINA uses
the statement to imply that the KDP and the PUK have committed crimes against the
Assyrian population in the Region. 

I hope such assassination squads never has existed and never will. However, that is not the
point here. The point is that the report that AINA is citing was made at the peak of the “civil
war” between the KDP and the PUK. If such squads did exist at the time, though, there is
reason to believe that the primary targets of the squads would be KDP or PUK members
since they were the warring parties. Using the squads against the Assyrian community would
make absolutely no sense.

In a war human rights are abused and cruelties do take place, that is the nature of war. That
does not mean that human rights abuses and similar cruelties are accepted by any of the
warring parties after the war has ended. The “civil war” between the KDP and the PUK
ended by the end of 1997. In 1998 much progress was made when the Washington
Agreement was signed, and a year later, in 1999, a second round of talks were held in
Washington. Ever since that time the two parties have done their utmost to keep the peace
and cooperate, and the day today they are still trying to solve the problems of the war,
prisoners of war and refugees are being resettled. The KDP and the PUK is trying to build a
democracy in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region.

One of the articles by AINA also mentions the assassination of the governor of Arbil, Franso
Hariri. Franso Hariri was loved by all the people of Arbil, by the KDP and by the KRG.
KDP offices and KRG offices all over the world held memorials in honour of Mr. Hariri, and
they received condolences from political leaders in many countries. It is ridiculous to suggest
that “KDP insiders” killed Franso Hariri because he was Assyrian. As mentioned earlier
many Assyrians are members of the KDP, and the KDP lead cabinet has three ministers of
Assyrian background in the current KRG cabinet. Based on the field evidence it is hard to
believe that the KDP discriminates or ever would discriminate against any of Assyrian origin
or against any person because of his or her religion, ethnicity etcetera. To the KDP what
matters is personal qualities, and personal qualities was something Franso Hariri had. He
was an excellent governor, loved by every citizen of Arbil and by the KDP.

Finally, AINA argues that the Iraqi Kurds have “steadily lost international sympathy they
previously enjoyed as the self-described victims of Saddam Hussein.” To write that the Iraqi
Kurds are only “self-described” victims of Saddam Hussein is to question incidents such as
Halabja in 1988 and the mass slaughter in connection with the 1991 uprising. Doing so in
an effort to promote ones own cause is simply not forgivable. No one in this world – maybe
accept Saddam Hussein and his most fanatic supporters – questions the cruelties committed
in Halabja in 1988, the notorious Anfal campaign in 1988 where nearly 182,000 people
disappeared, the disappearance of 8000 Kurds from the Barzan region, and the slaughters
and persecutions after the uprising in 1991.

The support of the Iraqi Kurds is not only because of the cruelties they were exposed to in
the past, and the cruelties the Kurds living outside the Iraqi Kurdistan Region are still
exposed to today. The Iraqi Kurds have gained much support and admiration from the
international community because of their success in governing the Region. Before the
creation of the KRG the people of the Region had almost no rights. Today they have all.
Freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and so forth – all are
freedoms enjoyed in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region. Moreover, the KRG is not trying to build a
“homogenous” Region. On the contrary, the KRG supports plurality in the Region, that is
why the KRG have been building schools for the Assyrian and Turkmen minorities so that
also they can teach and be taught in their own language.

Such efforts as promoting the different languages and cultures of the region, and securing
minorities representation in parliament have won the Iraqi Kurds great international support.
That support is in no way declining. The supportive Clinton policy towards the Iraqi Kurds
has been followed up by a just as supportive – if not more supportive – policy by the Bush
government. That the Swedish Left Party is criticising the Iraqi Kurds is of course a sign that
they expect more from a democratic regional government. However, the Left Party has far
from withdrawn its support for the Iraqi Kurds, it still supports the Kurdish people’s struggle
for cultural identity and national rights in all the countries in the Middle East.
-------------------------------------