In an interview with Jahan-e-Emrooz (Today’s World) #113, early Sept. 2003, Ebrahim Alizadeh, the 1^st secretariat of Komalah, provided his analysis of the situation in Iraq, and for the first time in public, discussed some very critical issues facing the Iraqi and Kurdish people. (Komalah is the largest and most unique Iranian socialist organization. It works clandestinely in Iran since all genuine political organizations are banned there, but has bases in Kurdish areas of Iraq. It enjoys popular support and respect, especially among the Kurds on either side of the Iran-Iraq border)

Ebrahim Alizadeh: It is clear that the U.S. government has met serious difficulties on all levels in Iraq. It is partly due to the real balance of power in the world, which the U.S. so arrogantly ignored. This balance of power is gradually becoming more visible when it comes to action in the real field, and has soured the initial military victory for the U.S. Having to deal with new realities, the U.S. is ready to give incentives to international counterparts and local rivals. Inviting the UN to have a bigger role in Iraq, negotiating with Turkey and showing flexibility in meeting Turkey’s conditions for sending troops, relaxing political pressure on the Islamic Republic (of Iran) all point to the fact that the U.S. is retreating from its previous positions in Iraq. On the other hand, efforts to bring peace in Palestine, based on the so called "Road Map" that was supposed to improve America’s image among Arab nations has reached a dead end due to Israel’s sabotage and violation of accords, and has produced the opposite result. The U.S. policies and actions in Iraq, its failure to establish security and provide basic needs for the people, and the humiliating treatment of Iraqis by American forces, have turned vast sections of society against the U.S. presence in Iraq. Kurdish Iraqis, for example who, encouraged by existing political parties, welcomed U.S. forces with optimism, are today in disbelief and deeply suspicious of American promises. They are realizing that the strategic interests of the U.S. are not in line with their own needs and interests in terms of cessation of national oppression or improved living conditions. Such undesirable conditions were of course predictable. The wounds created by years of extreme repression by Iraqi dictatorship were opened following the regime’s removal, but neither the U.S. government, nor any (local) government who has not earned its legitimacy from the will or vote of the majority of people, can heal these wounds. To the contrary, they have even prolonged and deepened such wounds. Today, Shi’a religious and political groups, as well as those who have resorted to armed attacks on U.S. forces, have taken advantage of the present state of dissatisfaction, established roots among the people, and unfortunately, in the absence of an effective role by progressive, radical and socialist forces, have dominated the scene. Obviously, none of these forces will open a promising horizon of freedom and prosperity for the people. Although violent attacks on American soldiers will bring the U.S. military forces under pressure, but the reality is that such actions, by whomever, will limit the mass struggle, and will prevent people from realizing their ability and potential for obtaining political power to manage the present chaotic situation. Had the Iraqi regime fallen following a growing mass movement, alternative organs, no doubt, would have gradually developed to replace the broken state machine of the past. This process was aborted by the U.S. intervention, and we are witnessing its effects today. The progressive and vanguard movement in Iraq should clearly separate itself from the political Islamists. It must clearly explain the destructive results of current acts of violence and terrorism to those who are rightly seeking the departure of U.S. forces. It must demonstrate instead, ways of mass mobilization against American goals and policies, try to fill the local power vacuum with people’s councils, and invite the working class and oppressed people to form a government based on the will of the majority.

Ebrahim Alizadeh: I shall first emphasize that Turkey is not the only country in the region that has pursued an interventionist policy. The Islamic Republic (of Iran-IRI) in its own way, is interfering in the affairs of Iraqi Kurdistan, and is causing insecurity in the towns of this area. For example, the extremist group, Ansar Al-Islam, which is supported and equipped by the IRI, has been reorganized in small teams and re-sent to Iraqi Kurdistan. These groups will do anything to spread anxiety and fear among people. Furthermore, the Islamic regime and Turkish government have coordinated their policies towards Iraqi Kurdistan and have arranged a set of actions against the political forces and people of this area. They are also making deals with the American government in their own capacities. Turkey would like to see a stable government in Iraq with which to trade. By controlling the sources of the Euphrates River, it can put pressure on, and gain economic advantages from Iraq. The problem in their view is Kurdistan, and this shapes their present policy towards Iraq. In two ways they try to prevent the Kurdish problem from being solved, by provoking the Turkmen minority, and by having a direct military presence in Kurdistan. Turkey’s military presence, even in non-Kurdish central Iraq, will result in Turkish casualties, replacing those of American. This will in turn result in Americans listening more favorably to Turkey when the Kurdish problem is discussed. Thus psychological background will be provided for the U.S. and Turkey to further coordinate their efforts. The Turkish government is trying to achieve both of these objectives. Relying on Turkish support, Turkman leaders in Iraq speak from such an aggressive position to the Kurdish parties, who are in charge in Kurdistan, in a way that is totally disproportionate to their size and political and military clout. It is clear they are laying the ground for the Turkish military to intervene.

Today, ethnic conflict and destruction of relations are threatening people of different nationalities who have been living here side by side in a very dangerous way. This threat has already taken a heavy toll and should it not be stopped by responsible behavior will result in a human catastrophe that may be irreparable. Turkey also knows that the U.S. administration is interested in decreasing its casualties, particularly because of its future effect on the upcoming elections. It is showing its interest in sending troops and is bargaining to get more incentives from the U.S. The Kurdish people are continually facing these two threats. But it is clear that the only way to undo the threats posed by the Turkish government is by relying on people’s consciousness and their own struggles. First of all, whatever is feeding the conflict among the people of Karkuk and elsewhere with regards to different nationalities and religions, between Kurds, Turkmen, and Arabs, must be stopped. The U.S. administration, from the beginning, and even before the downfall of the Iraqi regime, stepped on all its democratic principles by selecting a path of power-sharing that is based on combining different religions, nationalities and tribes. This policy has been reflected in all aspects of life and has started conflicts, and thus opened older wounds inflicted by the Ba’th regime. People of Kurdistan have themselves experienced decades of injustice, repression and national humiliation. Their basic rights have been denied. They must not allow an ultra nationalist movement to grow among themselves to deny the same rights from others and destroy relations between the Kurds, Arabs, and Turkmans. With patience, forgiveness, and conscious effort the Kurdish people who compose the majority in their areas must try to isolate the nationalist Arab and Turkman groups, and religious extremists amongst Arab and Turkman toilers. Local centers of power, councils, and unions must be formed with members regardless of their nationalities, religion, or tribal affiliations. Conscious workers, socialist and leftist activists must tirelessly fulfill their tasks and help people of these areas get through these critical situations. Such a movement can block the Turkish government policies, or the efforts of any reactionary group who is trying to benefit from destruction of human relations among oppressed people.

Jahan-e Emrooz: Recently, a group of Kurdish intellectuals have initiated an effort to hold a referendum to determine the future of Iraqi Kurdistan. What is your opinion on that and how do you see its future?

Ebrahim Alizadeh: In the past 12 years, part of Iraqi Kurdistan has been free from the Iraqi government’s rule, but for a variety of reasons, such as the policies and practices of ruling political parties in Kurdistan, and in particular, bloody civil wars, people have distanced themselves from direct political struggle to reach their goals and demands. And those who were under direct rule of the central government were being brutally suppressed. They did not get a chance to demonstrate their size on a mass scale. Add to this on-going propaganda that made people wait for an outside force to intervene, get rid of the (Iraqi) regime, and give them freedom.

This situation weakened, to a large degree, people’s confidence and sense of self reliance. With the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and Britain, and the overthrow of the Ba’th regime, this expectation became even stronger. People who have been making so many sacrifices for every bit of their freedom over the decades, to the extent that their resistance to the dictatorial rule had become an inseparable part of their daily life, were now to consider their liberation from the central government, as incomplete as it may be, a gift from outside. They remained hopeful that the U.S. would go all the way and would make it possible for them to gain their self determination. But, as time passes, it will become more clear to the people of Iraqi Kurdistan that the U.S. government has entered this area, not to provide them with freedom and a right to self determination, but to pursue its strategic, economic and political interests and to dominate. Verbal promises to imply otherwise will gradually disappear, and in fact, we can already see how such promises are broken. Given the situation, the people of Iraqi Kurdistan have no choice, as ever, but to rely on their own will, consciousness, and direct struggle to accomplish their rights. And if introducing the idea of a referendum could be considered a channel through which the present atmosphere of indifference and waiting among the Kurdish people could be overcome, this idea should be welcomed. For such an atmosphere will no doubt provide the conditions for their slavery again.

As I said before, the overthrow of the central government has provided the conditions throughout Iraq for mass organizations to be formed. The vanguard radical socialist individuals, and well known and trusted figures must come to the aid of the people to establish these structures based on traditions of people’s councils. These structures will step by step be strengthened by people’s experiences as they go on and mobilize. People’s political and economical demands will be pursued through these structures, and radical and vanguard organizations.

Even though, five months since the overthrow of the Ba’th regime and the occupation of Iraq by the American forces, we still have not witnessed noticeable progress in this regard, and the will of the people has not yet shown its real force, the opportunities are not all gone either. The country of Iraq is still in a very particular situation, and the possibilities for achieving political power are still available. The American government does not have a coherent plan for the future of Iraq. As some of their internal critics are saying, it has in fact been "caught in the quagmire." Given the situation in Kurdistan, one must use any opportunity to return self confidence to the masses, and use any channel to guide people in expressing their views and exercising their will. Where as today, all decisions are made from above, and in the absence of the people’s votes and opinions, mobility of the masses and their presence in various forms are crucial. Such a movement will raise the mass consciousness and its ability to organize, and will not allow pessimism and disillusion to take over the Kurdish society every time the U.S. and local powers change their policy. Introducing the idea of a referendum could be a manifestation of this political and social existence.

We fully support the liberation of the people of Iraqi Kurdistan from national oppression, which is their right to separate and form their own independent government. If holding a free referendum will achieve this undeniable right, we shall welcome it. Although the difficulties leading up to making a decision to form an independent Kurdish government in this area is understandable and worth noticing, should the people of Iraqi Kurdistan elect to follow this path, the chances of its success has never been higher compared to the recent past decades. However, with regard to the issue of a referendum, there are serious considerations. I’ll try to point out the most important ones: Freedom and democratic conditions are pre-requisites for holding a referendum. If people, in order to receive their daily bread, have to depend on those whose interests are not the same as those of the majority, and thus subject themselves to control and manipulation; if complete and unconditional freedom to form political parties, people’s councils, and mass organizations, as well as freedom of the press and assembly, and so on, are not provided; if independent local and international mass structures are not able to directly monitor and observe the whole process, holding a referendum is meaningless. The struggle to achieve such conditions in today’s Iraqi society, and in Kurdistan, is indeed a path and strategy that must be taken in order to have a real referendum.

People of Kurdistan are right to view the preparations for this idea with disbelief and be suspicious of its practical outcome. They have seen the results of such "referendums" in backward capitalist countries over and over. Out of these so called ballot boxes could come, not the free will of the people, but their own slavery decree. In the absence of the above-mentioned fundamental preconditions, the ballot boxes by themselves will do no magic. To the contrary, they could tighten the chains of the Kurdish people’s continued slavery, and cause denial of their freedom and rights. They could even give it a legitimacy.

In order to materialize the idea of a referendum and go beyond its present "slogan and request" status, it must leave the limited intellectual circles and become an issue for the masses. People must have access to the media to speak their minds. Should they choose separation, they must be able to discuss what kind of independent country they want. It is necessary that people, starting today, discuss and express their opinions in the media and free assemblies, about the type and quality of the government they want to establish. A promising horizon in this situation will create excitement which is necessary for every progressive move.