A Peace Zone for Kurdistan?

[PeaceNet * IGC * APC]

Subject: A Peace Zone for Kurdistan?

Note from PeaceNet:

Majid  Tehranian is Director of Spark M. Matsunaga Institute  for 
Peace.   His  recent  books include Letters  from  Jerusalem  and 
Technologies  of Power.  He is widely known around the  world  as 
one  of the foremost theoreticians and writers on  communications 
and peace.

Howard H. Frederick, PeaceNet Director

----------------------------------------------------------------
>From ifp Thu Apr 25 11:59 PDT 1991

A PEACE ZONE FOR KURDISTAN

By Majid Tehranian
Spark M. Matsunaga Institute for Peace
University of Hawaii
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822
Tel.: (808) 956-7427, 988-9563 Fax.: (808) 956-5708
PeaceNet:  ifp (Institute for Peace)
Bitnet: majid at uhccux.bitnet

     The  Gulf  War  and  its  tragic  consequences  present   an 
unprecedented  opportunity for an idea whose time has  come:  the 
possible creation of several Peace Zones in the Middle East.  The 
obvious  candidates  are Kurdistan (extending  into  Iraq,  Iran, 
Turkey,  Syria, and Soviet Union), Palestine (including the  West 
Bank and Gaza Strip), and Lebanon (federating the warring  ethnic 
and  religious communities into a number of Peace Zones).   These 
are  all  countries or territories that have been  war  zones  in 
recent decades.

     Simply   put,  a  Peace  Zone  may  be  defined  as  (1)   a 
transnational  entity  whose  sovereignty  resides  in  a  United 
Nations  Board  of  Trustees consisting  of  the  governments  or 
parties at dispute over a territory, (2) a global land  authority 
for  the  development of a common market among  the  members  and 
other interested parties acquiring "peace bonds" with  commercial 
rates  of  return,  and (3) to the  extent  possible,  culturally 
homogeneous  zones for the ethnically disenfranchised  majorities 
but  with  strict guarantees of human rights for  the  ethnic  or 
religious minorities residing in the zone.

     The above political, economic, and cultural requirements  of 
Peace  Zones  leave  considerable room  for  the  negotiation  of 
details  in  order to achieve positive rather  than  negative  or 
zero-sum  games  for the parties at conflict.  The plan  aims  at 
making  peace profitable to all sides.  By  resolving  protracted 
conflicts  in  a  peaceful  way, clearly  all  parties  win  more 
security.   By  entering into a common  market  arrangement,  the 
participating   governments  and  populations  win  in   economic 
prosperity.   By  giving autonomy and status  to  disenfranchised 
ethnic groups, the entire world wins in a greater achievement o f
human rights and international harmony.

     The  idea  of Peace Zones has been proposed by a  number  of 
peace scholars and activists, including Edna Fuerth Lemle,  Johan 
Galtung,  Bishop Antonio Fortich, and the people of Cheju  Island 
in Korea.  Edna Lemle has pursued this idea with the British  and 
Argentine   governments   for  a  peaceful  settlement   of   the 
Falkland/Malvinas  Islands conflict.  Johan Galtung has  proposed 
it  for  Palestine.  Bishop Fortich and his co-workers  have,  in 
fact,  successfully  established a number of peace zones  in  the 
Philippines.  The Filipino zones of peace are  civilian-initiated 
demilitarized  areas created to allow noncombatants to  establish 
homes  and economic bases without the fear of becoming caught  in 
the  cross-fire  between  the  military  and  the  rebels.    The 
communities  define  geographic areas where  neither  rebels  nor 
government   forces  may  enter.   Inhabitants  practice   strict 
nonviolence, maintain their infrastructure of roads, bridges  and 
schools,  and form peacekeeping forces that monitor the  presence 
of  strangers.   The  Cheju  Council  on  Foreign  Relations   is 
proposing  to  turn  the  island into a zone  of  peace  for  the 
reconciliation of North and South Korea.

     Although both Palestine and Lebanon are ripe candidates  for 
Peace Zones,  Kurdistan presents the most pressing case.  None of 
the  states  presently  controlling the  Kurdish  population  are 
willing   to  grant  independence  to  a   proposed   land-locked 
Kurdistan.  All of them may be willing, however, to recognize the 
internal  autonomy  of the Kurds under a plan that puts  them  in 
charge of security (as members of the UN Board of Trustees) while 
attracting  millions of dollars for a cooperative development  of 
the  region.   Old ideas of indivisible national  sovereignty  in 
multi-national  states  such as Iraq have  produced  nothing  but 
internal  repression  and external aggression.  Why not  try  the 
transnational  idea  of zones of peace and sovereignty  that,  if 
successful,  would  set  a significant  precedent  for  resolving 
protracted and costly conflicts?