|
|
|
Peter W. Galbraith
has erred in advocating Carlo K. Ganjeh On October 23, 2007, an article published in The New York Times by Mr. Peter W. Galbraith has advocated in most direct terms the partitioning of the Federal Republic of Iraq into Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions. The partition is proposed as an inevitable outcome because “there is no shared identity” between the three largest Iraqi factions. The stated proposition of Mr. Peter Galbraith, however, has a number of fundamental faults and is conducive to very adverse consequences, as follows: I.
The
federalism in the Iraqi Constitution has not provided nor insinuates the
partitioning of Iraq and
it is not warranted to be misconstrued as such. The Assyrians, whether residing in Iraq or Diaspora, have a longstanding identity with northern Iraq that is rooted in the history of the land and supported by the international archeological findings. The Assyrians have an inherent national right in northern Iraq that is beyond the provisions of the Iraqi Constitution and its requirement for conducting referendums. It is time for the Assyrians to be recognized, unequivocally, as a distinct national identity in the Assyrian ancestral homeland, with the Assyrians’ inherent national rights for self-determination in an Assyrian governorate as part of the Federal Republic of Iraq. Indeed, oversimplification of Iraq’s complex social tapestry is the prime source of error in Mr. Galbraith’s analysis and the resulting conclusion. As a political advisor to the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG), Mr. Galbraith has taken a position that contradicts the stated policy position of KRG. On Oct. 16, 2007, The Washington Post reported that Mr. Massoud Barzani, President of KRG, and Mr. Falah Mustafa Bakir, head of the KRG Department of Foreign Relations, have expressly stated in no uncertain terms that the federalism of Iraq is not “partition” and that the diversity of Iraqi society is a source of strength and not division. It is therefore rather unwarranted for a political advisor to take a radical policy position that is far more extreme than the position of the principals. The adverse ramification of the policy position advocated by Mr. Galbraith is in the benefit of none in the region. In the struggle against the tyranny of the former Iraqi dictatorial regime, in the fight for “freedom” there was no distinction between the Kurds, the Arabs, the Assyrians and all other factions with aspiration for achieving their freedom. In the aftermath of the fall of the tyrannical regime, the larger Iraqi factions have a responsibility to adhere to the principles of freedom for all the sects and factions of Iraq, irrespective of their numbers and the size of their militias. This responsibility applies foremost to procure, protect and preserve the national rights and the freedoms of the indigenous Assyrians. Indeed, all Iraqis’ shared passion for freedom unites them under an indivisible federal umbrella. In the course of the fight for freedom against the despotism of the former regime, Assyrians were on the forefront of the challenge with unparalleled contributions. In Diaspora, Assyrians remain optimistic to the opportunity for reestablishing their historic and national ties with an Assyrian governorate that is a part of the Federal Republic of Iraq. In Diaspora, Assyrians have gained invaluable attributes from western democracies, including access to knowledge and technology. Yet, the Assyrians have never lost the hope to reunite with the Assyrian ancestral homeland and to contribute toward its progress and prosperity. It is time for the international community and the United States of America in particular to support the Assyrians’ inherent rights in their ancestral lands in Iraq.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ |