khalijefars News, Blogs, Art and Community
17/2/2020
Dear Mr. Kendal Nezan, President of the Kurdish Institute of Paris,
Dear Madam Qassemlou, Mrs. Mina Qassemlou, Dr. Hassan Shatawi and other honourable members of the Qassemlou family,
Distinguished guests,
Dear friends,
Before I begin, let me thank the Kurdish Institute in Paris, Dr. Kendal Nezan and the organisers of this wonderful event dedicated to commemorating a prominent Kurdish leader. I am thankful for the invitation and the opportunity to contribute today.
We are here to pay tribute to the late prominent leader, Dr. Abdulrahman Qassemlou who was assassinated by the Iranian so-called diplomats who turned out to be terrorists, thirty years ago.
As you probably know, I was never a member of Dr. Qassemlou’s political party, although both my elder brothers were at different points in the past, but I had the opportunity to meet him many times on different occasions. We had long and serious discussions, as well as more casual conversations; we took part in events together, each representing our own party, and worked closely in cooperation on common projects in those revolutionary years. In addition to this, the long friendship and affinity between our two families dates back at least a century, as it is recorded in Dr. Shatawi’s book called The Fate. It is known that we had our differences and disagreements, rivalries, sometimes tensions, and unfortunately conflict during a certain period, of which neither of our two parties are proud.
I still vividly remember the two of us taking part in a conference in Tehran, in May 1979, the Conference of Solidarity of Peoples of Iran, organised by the National Democratic Front of Iran, where we were in close agreement with each other. There were numerous other instances of cooperation between our two parties during that time. One outstanding example was our joint call for a general strike in Kurdistan in protest against the execution of 59 political prisoners in Mahabad in 1983, which was hugely successful. The most important and most enduring cooperation, however, was the formation of the Kurdish Delegation in November 1979. This united delegation was intended to carry out negotiations with the representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which it did, but went much further than that and, for quite some time, became a symbol of Kurdish unity in other matters as well.
And this was only natural: we fought alongside each other against a brutal, totalitarian regime and our cooperation and coordination was imperative. Despite all our differences, we had many common values and goals. On quite a few fundamental issues of the time we reacted more or less the same: we both boycotted the Islamic Republic’s Yes-or-No referendum, we both demanded Kurdish national rights as well as a democratic system in Iran. We both took part, or rather organised, the Kurdish Resistance Movement against the unjustified, unprovoked order by Khomeini to launch a total military onslaught against Kurdistan in August 1979. We both later agreed to declare a ceasefire and engage in negotiations with Tehran. We were in the same boat, and not as passengers but the crew, in charge of steering the boat to safety one way or another.
Another point where we shared the same view was the nature and dynamics of the relationship between Kurdish rights and democracy in Iran. Dr. Qassemlou famously coined, or rather cleverly adopted, the phrase ‘Democracy for Iran and Autonomy for Kurdistan’ to summarise the connections between the two. This phrase captured the imagination of the masses for quite some time and remained the main slogan of the Kurdish movement for more than two decades. He emphasised time and again that Kurds can fight against the regime, but, however united and well organised, they cannot bring it down on their own. Kurds can and should be an indispensible component of any democratic transition but they cannot bring about structural change in Iran on their own. And he was right.
I place particular emphasis on this point because I am of the belief that it remains as valid as ever. We as Kurds in Iran need unity of purpose and unity of action more than ever before, of that I have no doubt. At the same time, we can and should be a viable force of democratic change in Iran and a firm pillar of a true democratic establishment in the future. The isolationist view claims that keeping outside of Iranian politics strengthens the Kurdish case and better promotes the Kurdish cause. In fact, the opposite is correct. We need democracy to safeguard our rights, to prosper and to thrive. We as Kurds ought to have a say in shaping the future of Iran on a grand scale. This does not hinder our cause. In fact, it strengthens it. There is ample evidence to suggest this was the view of Dr. Qassemlou as well. The recent widespread protest movement all over the country, with passionate participation of the Kurdish cities, chanting more or less the same slogans, putting forward common demands, and brutalised by the same enemy, is living proof of the above argument.
Dr. Qassemlou was a reformer in his own party as well. He was a far-sighted politician who dared to invent, to renew, to change. And this brings me to the issue of changing ideological gear in his party, and later in mine. This was one of his last battles. By publishing the famous pamphlet called ‘A Brief Discussion on Socialism’, he made quite a stir in his party and amongst his followers. At first it was not a total separation with the soviet brand of leftism, rather a gradual distancing, eventually resulting in a break. It also had a visible impact on some Kurdish parties in other parts of Kurdistan, especially in Iraqi Kurdistan.
About a decade later, we in the Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan went through a process with striking similarities, albeit in our own way. Needless to say we were different parties, with different backgrounds, a different history, different policies, and our ideological backgrounds were different too. Theirs was a pro-soviet brand of leftism inspired and influenced by the Tudeh Party, while we rejected everything that was identified with that brand of left and instead flirted with Maoist ideas for some time during the seventies and then, in the beginning of the eighties, broke with that too. Theirs was rather milder, while our ideology was quite rigid until the late eighties. Despite all of these important differences, we were both engaged in internal ideological fights against the spectres that haunted our respective pasts. It was not an easy, smooth ride for either of us; we paid quite a price for it. Though, we both ended up, by different measures, in adhering to the values of Western social democracy. Quite a journey for both sides.
Alas, Dr. Qassemlou is not alive to see how things have changed in a way that he most probably would have liked. Old, harsh rivalries of the past have given way to a more mature, mutual understanding and cooperation of recent times. We have taken positive steps in the right direction. In 2012, our two parties signed an agreement, a kind of alliance charter containing common views and policies, which was a breakthrough in its time. In 2018, together with other parties, we formed the Centre for Cooperation of the Iranian Kurdish Parties. This centre has become a symbol of unity and a point of reference for the Kurdish people in Iran. Considering recent events, there is more that we can and should do. We need to encourage closer unity, speak as one with the international community, and at the same time try to engage with the Iranian democratic opposition to contribute in building a truly democratic, pluralist, viable alternative where Kurds have their place.
As far as the situation in Iran is concerned, it is not business as usual. Fundamental developments are taking place in Iran, which deserve to be taken into consideration by the international community. Gone are the days of ‘critical dialogue’ with Iran. Let us not make another mistake: the days of the so-called reformers in Iran are over. They raised high hopes in the past and were given the chance by voters, but were incapable of bringing about any substantial or tangible change in the country. They are now completely marginalised, expelled from the government, disqualified by the Council of Guardians and discredited in society, with no future in Iran. Recent developments have provided the international community with more than enough reason to reconsider their position, to think about an Iran post the Islamic regime, and to engage with the country’s democratic opposition, of which the Kurds are a key component.
Thank you very much for your time and attention.
