28/08/2012 RUDAW – By SAKAR ABDULLAZADA – ERBIL, Kurdistan Region — The Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI) and Revolutionary Society of Iranian Kurdistan’s Toilers (Komala), have described the strategic agreement between them as “the foundation of a big political union” in Iranian Kurdistan.But other political parties are worried about the treaty.
Kamil Nuranifard, the spokesperson of the Organization of Iranian Kurdistan Struggle, told Rudaw that while the treaty was a positive and important step, he was skeptical about how it would be used by both groups.
“If they use this union to unilaterally decide on fateful issues in Iranian Kurdistan, then we see it as a bad move because the future of Kurdistan needs the participation of all parties and groups,” Nuranifard said. “We hope that this union will remain within the political framework.”
The agreement between KDPI and Komala includes 14 points, emphasizing toppling the Islamic Republic of Iran, seeking federalism for Iranian Kurdistan, promoting the separation of religion and government and solving issues through dialogue, peace and social justice.
Arif Bawajani, leader of the Kurdistan Freedom Party (KFP), considers the agreement to be important and told Rudaw, “These two parties have fought each other in the past and the threat of more conflict between them has been looming in the future. Now, with this agreement, the threat has been cut by half, and the other half has been reduced by groups who have split from these two parties.”
But Bawajani does not believe this agreement will be important enough to benefit Iranian Kurdistan as a whole. “It will mainly benefit the two involved parties,” he said.
“I wish they had thought about the general interest and invited all the other parties to take that step together,” Bawajani said. “These two parties should not act like the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) in Iraqi Kurdistan, because no elections have been held in Iranian Kurdistan and it has not been proven that these two parties enjoy wide public support among Kurds.”
Simko Yazdanpana, the general secretary of the Union of Kurdistan Revolutionaries, said that the parties have good intentions and that the treaty would rule out the threat of conflict between them in the future.”We believe agreements between parties are a positive thing. But, if it is done on the expense of the other parties, then it will have negative consequences,” said Yazdanpana.
Hama Nazif Qadiri, a member of KDIP and the leader of the delegation that signed the treaty with Komala, told Rudaw, “This agreement is not at the expense of any other party. It is a platform for dialogue with the other political parties of Iranian Kurdistan who are committed to toppling the Islamic Republic of Iran, seeking federalism for Kurds and solving their issue through dialogue and modern struggle.”
One of the most important provisions of the agreement was to call upon all the political parties of Iranian Kurdistan to take part, but most of those parties were not willing to.
Mustafa Mawludi, deputy secretary general of the Democratic Party of Kurdistan (DPK), said, “We consider this treaty to be very normal and do not have any problem with it. But before a political party can join a treaty, they should first be aware and informed of the initial talks. They did not invite us to these talks. We would have gladly participated in them had they invited us.”
“Unfortunately, all their meetings were either bilateral or trilateral,” Bawajani said. “KDPI and Komala did not invite the rest of the political parties for talks, so how can we suddenly take part in a treaty where all the provisions are prepared by KDPI and Komala without consulting others?”For his part, Nuranifard echoed this sentiment. “We will never join a treaty with provisions prepared and decided in advance by others. We do not want to make premature decisions, but the fear is that a counter-front to these two parties will be formed and an unhealthy rivalry between them initiated.”Yazdanpana said that, as of yet, the intentions of the treaty are not clear. “Would our participation make us equal partners or would it just serve to strengthen these two parties? If this treaty was intended to gather the voices and positions of the political parties in Iranian Kurdistan, then our party will participate without hesitation.”
He added, “These two parties need to act very wisely so as not to turn Iranian Kurdistan into a divided land like Syrian Kurdistan.”
Qadri dismissed these arguments. “Neither KDPI nor Komala has the intention of stepping into this process bilaterally. We have held many meetings with the majority of Kurdish parties in order to agree on the common points among us. There were a number of differences over how to achieve the aspirations of the Kurdish nation. Therefore, after a multilateral evaluation, we signed this treaty with Komala.”
Faruq Babamiri, a political bureau member of Komala, said, “All the parties and organizations need to consider this treaty as their own. We have tried many times to meet with the other parties but we could not. This is a door for the coming together of all Kurdish parties and organizations in Iranian Kurdistan. No one should be worried about this treaty.”