|Chomsky on The Kurds|
|By Namo Abdulla - The Window (exclusive)|
It is very difficult where to begin writing a summary about a great thinker like Noam Chomsky who is the most quoted-person in the World and arguably the biggest alive thinker.
In brief, he is an American linguistic and philosopher. He has written 200 books translated into over 50 languages. He has been a critic of US policy since the Vietnam War. Chomsky was also against the US-led war on Iraq and believes that the war has been for oil and the creation of a reliable client regime in the region.
Here, in this interview, this influential thinker is talking about US foreign policy towards the Kurds and the potential post Bush US foreign policy about these biggest stateless indigenous people.
Namo: Can the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime be considered watershed in the history of the Kurds especially Iraqi Kurds?
Chomsky: The collapse of Saddam's regime did not happen in a vacuum, and the implications for the Kurds depend on what the outcome is for Iraq (if it even survives as a cultural and historical entity) and the region. These questions are very much in flux. For these reasons, the question is unanswerable.
Namo: How do you see future of the Kurds in the region?
Chomsky: For the first time, there seems to be a possibility for some degree of autonomy and development for a segment of the Kurdish population, namely in the former Iraq. But that is far from certain. Decent survival of the Kurdish region in northern Iraq depends on relations with its neighbors: including Arab Iraq and, crucially, outside powers, primarily the US but also others in the region and beyond. There is little point in speculation. What is necessary is to act judiciously and thoughtfully to maximize the likelihood of a decent outcome.
Comsky: To begin with, the assumption that the US will withdraw from Iraq is very dubious. The US did not invade in order to withdraw. It is not busily at work building huge military bases around the country and a city-within-a-city called an "Embassy" in order to dismantle them. Rather, the goal has always been to establish a reliable client regime that will serve as a base for US power in what has long been recognized to be "the most strategically important area of the world" (President Eisenhower) and "one of the greatest material prizes in world history" (State Department), and that will open its resources to Western (primarily US) exploitation. There is no longer much need to debate this, since the goals are now stated in official declarations. Perhaps the US will be compelled to withdraw, leaving the richest region of Iraq subject to Iranian influence. But that will be a last resort.
Namo: Neither McCain nor Obama, in their strategies is talking about the Kurds, to what extent do you believe next US administration pays attention to the Kurds?
Namo: Your final words?
In partnership with Kurdish-language magazine Leven.