Nemat Sharif | Exclusive to iKurd.net
Author: Saber Mamaseini, Attorney at Law and legal advisor
Review and Commentary by: Nemat Sharif
Language: Kurdish; 670 pages
In this valuable book, the writer provides several different definitions for diplomacy based on opinions of authors as dictated by their circumstances and events. Here is a more comprehensive definition is summed up. Diplomacy is the study and practice of a set of formally organized relations between countries or entities that are linked in peace or in war.
A diplomat is then responsible for clarifying and explaining these relations and policies that link his country to the host nation, as well as theirs to his own. He must certainly be a well-informed, well-cultured person who is familiar with political, economic and government affairs of his country and the host nation. Therefore, a successful diplomat is the one who reflects the position of his country to the host country and reflects theirs to his country so that officials can manage changes and improve their ties.
He must deal with developments in light of his country’s policy and come up with solutions that satisfy both nations in the event of problems arise between them. Neither party should feel wronged in order to reach a sustainable solution between them.
When speaking of diplomacy, the ambassador is the first one to come to mind for he is the first person responsible for a team of specialists and experts in international relations, in addition to his other administrative responsibilities. He is not as erroneously thought of as a postman who conveys messages between two nations.
For example, diplomacy at the advent of Islam was nothing but the call to Islam, otherwise they would face war or pay tribute in submission. Diplomacy plays a role when two or more parties are at equal rights, responsibilities, politics and sovereignty regardless of disparity in military power and will to use it.
Unfortunately modern diplomacy uses power to support diplomacy to submit one party to the conditions of the stronger. But as early as the Kurdish Dostaki (AKA: Marwanids 982-1086) state used in its diplomatic relations gifts and financial offerings, perhaps the first of its kind, with the Byzantine Empire. The Dostaki Prince sent gifts and large sums with the goal to support his diplomatic work to consolidate the relationship between his country and the Byzantine Empire (page 83).
We believe this is better in supporting diplomatic action than military force, although financial backing and offerings still have a role in modern diplomacy. Since WWI occupation diplomacy has appeared; that is occupier’s will and terms are imposed through negotiations. Sadly, humanity still pays for the its aggressive instinct to subjugate others and to seize what rightfully belongs to others.
The author concluded that Baathist regime’s diplomacy was lagging behind for using diplomatic channels and pouches for operational purposes against the opposition. This is illegal, but it is common among other diplomatic missions. Iraq had a hyper-active diplomacy in Europe and America in defending Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship and war efforts against Iran, the Kurds and Kuwait.
This was clear under Tariq Aziz as the foreign minister and when Nizar Hamdoun was Iraq’s Ambassador in Washington. For example Saddam Hussein’s meeting with April Glaspy, the American ambassador to Iraq, before invading Kuwait.
The author also censures Jalal Talabani for using his diplomatic skills for the benefit of Iraq but not the Kurds. It is believed that perhaps was done not to benefit his rival Kurds. Another reason was perhaps that Talabani, despite his claim to democracy, wanted to memorialize his name in history as the first Kurdish president of Iraq (PP. 48–56).
The Hittite Empire
The empire was far-flung and ruled for more than 1000 years. Due to the vastness of their empire, they had three official languages and several local ones, Indo-European, Akkadian (Semitic), and Hamitic languages. They enjoyed religious freedom and became known as “the land of the thousand gods”. They had a legal system that remained the best until the time of the Romans.
Their penal code was no different from the Jewish penal code except that it was more tolerant. Judaism brought along the principle of revenge, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”, which was in contrast to the tolerance of the Hittites. They gained their historical greatness by using their army. They were compared to the Pharaonic Egypt, as they applied universal military training to all their armies. They discovered iron and used it in the manufacturing of weapons 300 years before the spread of the Iron Age in the world. Their cities were fortified and their castles were famous.
Their capital was in Hattusa (near modern day Bogazkale, Turkey) for more than 600 years and then moved to southern Kurdistan, especially in the Bahdinan region, and their name survived in a village named ‘Hititi’ near Duhok. Their civilization continued after the fall of the empire for more than 100 years in seven independent city-states. Contemporary biblical studies indicate that the Prophet Abraham (pbuh), lived in peace and security among the Hittites and many followed him.
During the era of the Prophet David (pbuh) there were units of the Hittites in his army and two great generals who served with devotion and loyalty. Biblical historians believe that the Hittite Empire was most similar in ancient history to the United States in its laws and personal freedoms and its liberal system that is most similar to the constitutional monarchy.
Researchers confirm that the empire was an Indo-European state and its people in general were Indo-European. Despite that, Kurdish historians still avoid accepting them as one of the ancient roots of the Kurds, and they were the ones who destroyed the Mitanni state and absorbed its entire population into their own.
The role of intellectuals and politicians
In democracy, major political mistakes must be identified and made public to be discussed, reconciled and avoid their dire results. This is what living peoples who practice democracy correctly do. In the absence of democratic practices, we see revolts of peoples against their rulers, most of which are violent.
Only few may bring about change peacefully or with few losses. In the case of the Kurds, they’ve been distinguished by their legitimate cause for more than a century. They are undoubtedly very active who often offer sacrifices for their freedom.
Kurdistan’s important strategic location and abundant resources that attracts neighbors and world powers to find a foothold. Kurdistan, with its picturesque beauty and peaceful people, often targeted for its natural resources and strategic importance.
Why are the Kurds still without a country of their own, as our intellectuals, academics and politicians tell us? We are divided among four countries, and scattered minorities from central Asia to the caucuses, and several western countries. Cooperating with countries occupying Kurdistan must be identified as treason. As the author says “Turkish officials occupy Kurdistan and execute its leaders whenever they have the opportunity.
Therefore we see that this old trait is rooted in the Turks. Hence, our current leaders must understand this fact that Turkish officials one after another are the real enemies of the Kurds and supporting the Turks is a great historical betrayal.” (Page 109) For comparison, the author cites some examples Mustafa Barzani’s assistance to the Armenians and unlike them when Sheikh Ahmed Barzani took refuge in Turkey, they were transferred to Ankara and less than a year later handed over to Iraq to be exiled to southern Iraq until 1943.
It seems that we are not good at practicing constructive criticism, especially our intellectuals and politicians. We practice praise and flattery, and those who do not praise us, we tend to throw them in prison or in the category of enemies. We create reasons and justifications for our infallibility and innocence.
There is no need for another definitions of culture, as thinkers know it when they see it. But in a broad sense it is a systematic set of beliefs, actions and behaviors that are formed within a human group. The culture of the individual has a strong and direct impact on his behavior.
Therefore, culture is a set of features that distinguish societies from each other, and its components include language, arts, religion, customs, traditions and prevailing values. They are cumulative and continue dynamically. (See: Reham Abu Warda, Culture of Peoples, June 9, 2020, mawdoo3.com). From this point of view, we see that the bloody history of the Kurdish people constitutes an important part of their general culture and necessarily plays an important role in the behavior of individuals.
This fact in itself determines the extent of the individual’s feeling of freedom and exercise of public expression, as one of the important duties of the individual is self-preservation, and avoiding risks and problems. This is clearly evident in “semi-democratic” societies. Intellectuals and writers in particular are characterized by caution about the consequences of their thought processes and expression, verbal or written.
This is evident in their work and they know the risks of disclosing their ideas freely if they anger politicians. This is one side of the equation; the other side is the politicians in power who, like the rest of us, can make mistakes. Hence the fear of intellectuals leads to reluctance to tell the truth.
Many turn to praise the politicians, so they become a part of their mistakes. It is no secret that politicians and those in power in any society understand this fact. Thus, we see them in particular inclined to dictatorial behavior not only to instill fear, but also through rewards such as handouts and privileges to those who praise and flatter, or at least justify their undemocratic practices.
Fear begins when the intellectual or writer hesitates to say or write and then think about what will happen to him and his privileges if he writes, even in the choice of words if he decides to speak or write. He ascertains that he would not be misunderstood. The heroes are those who say and write with the understanding that their thought processes would be scrutinized. They are prepared to bear the consequences for the stance in their words and writings.
“As long as the three tents are here, this revolution will not succeed” Saleh Al-Yousifi
It seems that the discussion of Yousifi’s leftist thought during the days of the September Revolution (1961-1970) and in isolation of the Cold War atmosphere in the sixties of the last century (pp. 141-143) was short and incomplete. The Soviet Union (USSR) was not the best application of Marxism after Lenin died. But it was the other pole opposed to the capitalist camp. They claimed supporting self-determination for the oppressed people, which earned them legitimacy in the eyes of oppressed peoples.
Marxism does not claim validity for all societies and all classes at all times and places. It is an ideology specific to the working class in industrialized societies, toilers and farmers in agrarian societies. Thus, it emphasizes the unity of the working class and the unity of its struggle to achieve the desired goal of freedom and happiness of peoples. Marxism politically offers ‘solutions’ that provide developing societies with a roadmap for progress to achieve their goals to bring the proletariat to power. Along these political lines are:
- Pursued a policy of world peace and preventing a third world war during the cold war. On this intellectual basis, Salih al-Yousifi opposed the existence of the three tents as a symbol of the West, and at the same time, he was a sincere nationalist in his belief in the legitimate rights of the Kurdish people.
- Pursuing the policy of the right of peoples to self-determination through Marxism will eventually lead to remove the bourgeoisie. In other words a recipe for civil war. Most nationalist movements were interested in liberation thought, rather than Marxism including Yousifi. Here is the break in his thought. His interest lied in the Kurdish liberation movement. In the Cold War atmosphere, it was imperative for some to take a stand at times, as in Yousifi quote above.
In democracies, the advantage for the Kurds and other oppressed peoples is the convergence of interests and concepts of democracy and human rights accorded by the west, in contrast to the dictatorship of the proletariat. The west dealt with governments and not peoples (as the Eastern bloc claimed) and the United Nations is a group of governments. Today’s Russia is not the USSR, as Russia has become a capitalist country, although democracy is lagging behind. The USA and Russia can become friendlier for the sake of world peace, democracy and economic benefits for both.
Ramzi Nafie and Diplomacy:
The story of Ramz Nafi’ is a sad adventure of a young man who was passionate about the cause of his people but not diplomacy. Unfortunately he was caught in the maze of international intelligence during World War II. He lost his young life in his adventure.
How did he give himself the right to single-handedly trust the Germans? He did not inform his family, the leaders of the Kurdish parties or the professional organizations at the time? How only four people could control the oil fields in Kirkuk! This is closer to fiction than reality; more so, passing through the Shabak area and notables of Bazwaya to help them.
Their guide left them halfway out of fear for his life. Obviously, no ill intention as in contrast to the smugglers who turned them in. As for their passage through “Wadi Shur”, it is called “Darah Shur”, which means “salty valley”, and it did not need an Arabic translation because the book is in Kurdish. (pp. 184-195).
Fear and democracy:
There is no doubt that fear is a basic factor in the formation of the human psyche. This is clearly reflected in democratic regimes and dictatorships; perhaps the extent it runs in any regime that claims it. It is often said that democracy in the Middle East, especially in Iraq, is different from democracy elsewhere. Then, Iraq was still under one of the most notorious dictators in the world, of Saddam Hussein, who ruled Iraq with fire and chemical weapons for three decades.
Baath Party ideologues at the time spoke of ‘guided democracy’. This in itself denotes a dichotomy. How do you direct a people who are supposed to govern themselves? It is assumed that democracy in the middle east will cause chaos as people have no experience with democracy; and other peoples (i.e. the West) have been practicing it for hundreds of years? This rationalization is cause for fear as it might justify and pave the way for undemocratic governing.
Why do leaders impose their views on the people when they know the truth about democracy? Jawaharlal Nehru once said: “The problems of democracy could only be solved by more democracy, rather than through more institutionalization and laws”
Guided democracy is nothing but taming the people to accept a certain style of leadership and teaching them that leadership over time becomes limited to ‘one leader who knows best of their interests’. Hence, people must obey him. This is usually accompanied by instilling fear in people. Individuals become disengaged from the process of democracy and unwilling to express their opinions lest this be consistent with the official path.
The motto becomes ‘let others speak or oppose, so I do not need headaches’. In fact, on the timeline of dictatorship, it does not take long for this to become the position of many, and hence opposition begins to form in small numbers easy to punish at first as compared to the society.
Punishment is justified by ‘standing against the interests of the people’. In fact, the opposition is a few bold citizens who ‘see’ the government behavior and link it to those who represent the regime. When the opposition begins to act collectively it becomes a struggle for reform as in demonstrations and other means of peaceful expression or even resort to violence such as coups.
Jalal Talabani and diplomacy
Obviously, there is more than one way to write diplomatic history. There are those who want to focus on an issue(s) and track their progress in a certain period of time. And there are those who wish to focus on the timeline, and discuss issues of the time. Hence, the effectiveness of diplomacy for that period. Or choose to track the people who play a diplomatic role. Dr. Mamaseni chose this to accomplish his valuable book under review here.
His book includes many leaders and officials in the Kurdistan region, including President Massoud Barzani, Nechirvan Barzani, Adnan Al-Mufti, President Jalal Talabani, among others. For the purpose of this review, we chose Talabani, first because he played an important role in Kurdish diplomacy and leadership in the Kurdish liberation movement, and second, for some difficult situations that shed light on his diplomatic skills, successes and failures. A diplomat swims a rough sea, sometimes riding the wave and sometimes drifting with the current.
Talabani was an active diplomat, an intellectual, a tactful human rights defender. Although he descended from a prominent religious family, he chose the risky path of politics to go down in history as the first Kurdish president of Iraq. Diplomacy is part of the great political game between nations as well as aspiring peoples for a place among nations such as the Kurds.
Like other professions, diplomacy also has its successes and failures, and does not necessarily reflect on the diplomat’s skills or personality. Writing about them is also risky and takes audacity to dive in. This review and remarks are not meant to reflect on the author. This huge undertaking is a testimony to his great effort and service to this and generations to come to benefit from the lessons contained therein, as well as a testimony to what diplomats can do for their country.
Perhaps the circumstances of the Kurdish movements may not favor much criticism of Kurdish diplomacy, if it is mentioned, it is for the sake of historical honesty, expect the criticism to be clear and constructive. Any diplomat of Talabani’s stature, energy and activity must have faced difficulties at times, but a successful diplomat does not back down, but learns the lesson and moves on as he did. Let us consider the following paragraph translated from the Kurdish text:
“Before the 1991 uprising and at the end of the Gulf War, when a group of senior Iraqi Kurdish diplomats were waiting in the reception hall of the U.S. State Department on the Second Street in Washington, D.C., they were not received by a high-ranking diplomat. They were scheduled to be received by Richard Jeffrey, assistant secretary of state for humanitarian affairs, and now at the National Security Council, but he backed down for some reason in the last hour.
A secretarial [employee] of the Department was appointed to receive the Kurdish delegation. He told them that he would like to have a cup of coffee with them outside the State Department. But then, when Talabani visited America, all the staff of President Clinton’s administration at the State Department stood in due respect to welcome him and rolled out the red carpet for him.” (PP 232-233)
In both cases, we believe that the delegation was headed by Mr. Talabani. The reluctance to receive him in the first does not reflect on the delegation, but rather on the political atmosphere at the time and America’s policy of not receiving any of the Iraqi opposition at that time.
The warm reception and appreciation of the Kurdish delegation the second time was a reflection of the change in US policy at that time and an appreciation of Talabani’s status. His frequent meetings with the United Nations certainly reflect Talabani’s competence.
Certainly, the Kurdish people lost with his death a seasoned diplomat and a prominent leader who left his mark on the Kurdish movement not only in Iraq but in other parts of Kurdistan as well. Diplomatic relations reflect by and large the political atmosphere between any two sides.
Communities, Parties and Institutional Thought:
On pages (487-489), the author discusses, albeit briefly, three important topics at the heart of the KRG’s diplomacy: He appreciates the role of Kurdish communities abroad and benefiting from their experiences in representing successive Kurdish revolutions, and their relations in the countries in which they live.
The representatives of Kurdish revolutions all along were neither trained professionally, nor holders of degrees in diplomacy or political science. They believed in the just cause of their people, were led by circumstances to the countries in which they worked and learned by experience over time. They were linked to the Public Relations offices of their parties, exchanged information and received guidance to perform their tasks in their respective positions.
Contemporary diplomacy requires the move from individual representation of parties to institutional diplomatic decision-making, behind which stands an ‘army’ of trained diplomats familiar with politics and international relations, especially as Kurdish universities have begun to train and graduate a new generation of diplomatic enthusiasts who are dedicated to serving their country.
With the emergence of the KRG, Kurdish diplomacy evolved from representatives linked to parties to representation offices of the KRG, most of which performs diplomatic functions as well as some consular services. They are centrally overseen by the Office of Relations and are managed by a KRG minister-level official. We believe that there is a period of several months to prepare new diplomats before they are appointed to their posts.
However, despite the teaching of political sciences and diplomacy, the Kurds collectively are still at the beginning of the road. Diplomatic successes mostly lie in the legitimacy of the Kurdish cause, as it is the cause of the largest stateless people, and the third largest nationality in the Middle East.
It seems that Kurdish diplomacy is in transformation, rather than institutional. In other words, it depends on a limited number of experienced people by virtue of their positions and truly, they are the driving force behind the Kurdish diplomacy.
Institutional thought has two main pillars, the first is full democracy, and the second is the enactment of laws under which institutions operate. Both rely on the people and following the democratic decision-making. Thus, we find that institutional thought necessarily requires faith in democracy and commitment to legislated laws.
Otherwise institutions will turn into institutions that rely on dictatorial thought and style. The difference between democratic institutions and dictatorships is that the first is dynamic and effective, and the second serves a specific person or group, and the examples are many around the world.
The fault is not the existence of two or more competing parties, but the absence of democracy and non-compliance with existing laws. Doesn’t democracy necessarily mean that there are two (or more) groups competing and correcting each other so that the majority opinion prevails? A joint goal does not necessarily mean the absence of democratic competition, and reaching it does not necessarily mean that it is accomplished by one team.
Often resolving conflicts through war can create a dominant single party, while small parties only get dragged along the winning party. So the presence of a large party may not contradict the multi-party system because there are other parties on the scene, but it weakens democracy to a large extent.
Concern for democracy, consolidating the foundations of its institutions, adhering to laws and serving the common goal should not incite the hegemony of one over other groups, even if the goal is the same.
Institutional thought precedes its application. The Kurdistan Region is not independent, and the KRG has limited practice of institutional diplomacy for a long time. This has resulted in depending mainly on individuals, their ideas and vitality.
Therefore, Kurdish diplomacy suffers from ebbs and flows depending on the constantly changing regional and international politics. The importance of institutionalism lies in the process of collective decision making; that is the main flow of discussions, meetings, conferences, and sometimes through communication in writing by preparing studies, directives and correspondence.
Hence, everyone moves within this main flow of the process, from the minister to the ambassador. From within this process comes the role of the active diplomat such as the minister, ambassador or any other position to move to achieve the desired goal.
Not ‘separating party and state’: Party politics set and run elections, however, once elections are over and a new government is in place, all government decisions including diplomacy should be made by government officials, i.e. the parliament, the ministers etc.
As the case in most Middle East democracies, the lines between the state and party are often blurred, and perhaps there are also blocs within the parties that influence the decision making. Thus, state and party legitimize each other, especially in light of a turbulent opposition that blurs coalition and opposition.
As the comparison goes, Kurdish diplomatic decisions are often more transparent and clear than other governments in the Middle East as evidenced by statements and positions of Kurdish officials.
The author follows the biographies of individuals and their roles in Kurdish diplomacy. This approach exists and is followed, but sometimes falls into the boring narrative as if it reproduces the agenda of these people. This allows the chronological tracking of their activities and their achievements.
What is missing is the tracking and development of an issue over a time period, regardless of the politician or diplomat. That is, the writer provides diplomacy through individuals as opposed to an institutional view of it, i.e. tracking and presenting the subject and its developments in periods of time that may be prolonged to cover the periods of work of a number of diplomats who took office and worked on that issue and what has been achieved.
This approach allows first to understand the subject in its historical path on the one hand and draw lessons, including the behavior of the other party and projecting them onto the present and the future. In other words institutional memory v. individual one, second this scientific method of research and investigation instead of biography.
Concluding Remarks:
As mentioned earlier, this book is of importance, moral value and information richness as it establishes the history of Kurdish diplomacy. It merits translation into other languages to be accessible to researchers, and those interested in the Kurdish issue. The following notes may proof useful for the new editions. With the progress of printing technologies and the book industry, publishing and printing houses often assume responsibility for editing, indexing and other technical aspects.
1) There are more than twenty important documents that can be numbered and included in an appendices section to allow the reader to focus on the body of the text and its analyses while providing appendices for those who are interested in more information.
2) It is important to include some historical maps in a special appendix if it is translated into other languages, although it is useful even in the current Kurdish edition, although it is not informationally necessary for the Kurdish reader who is supposed to be familiar with Kurdish history.
Nemat Sharif, a political analyst, a contributing writer and columnist for iKurd.net.
The opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of iKurd.net or its editors.
Copyright © 2025 iKurd.net. All rights reserved
Related posts:
Margaret Coker’s Book ‘The Spymaster of Baghdad’ – a short review
Nechirvan Barzani – An open letter to Kurdistan Prime Minister over Gulf Keystone Petroleum
Today is October 7, 2015!
The political crisis in Iraqi Kurdistan and the absence of a democratic solution
KDP’s discriminatory rules – Get a job at int’l oil companies in Iraqi Kurdistan
No Thanks to Afforestation ‘Turkey plants thousands of seedlings in Erbil’, Iraqi Kurdistan!
Kurds Need Kawa for the Two Evil Dynasties are Bleeding the Nation
Kurdistan Election, Turkey-PKK Peace Talks, and the Next U.S. President
