Celebrating Dr. Ghassemlou’s Work and Achievements
He was assassinated not only for being the leader of the Kurds of Iran, but more than that, because of the type of man he was – his beliefs and the difficult choices he made were unlike those of other traditional leaders in the region.
In 1989 when ARG [Dr Abdul Rahman Ghassemlou] decided to go and meet his nemesis in Vienna, he may have been reckless. He may have made the controversial decision to go anyway, but he knew the risks because he had been publicly warned 10 years before that he was being condemned to death, while simply watching television.
On Iranian television that day – August 19, 1979 – none other than the Ayatollah Khomeini had come to the opening session of the Constitutional Council of Experts in Tehran. This Council was going to design a Constitution for the new Islamic Republic.
Imagine the scene the television camera is broadcasting: The hall is full of venerable ulemas, their heads covered with turbans and their faces somber as they listen to the Imam.
Khomeini at the podium, with his thick eyebrows, is speaking in his soft monotonous voice; a tone he also used to express great anger.
Ghassemlou speaking to a crowd following the revolution of 1979
A few days earlier, armed Kurds had defeated his troops in Iranian Kurdistan. Irate, Khomeini threatened the army with punishment and declared himself Commander in Chief of the armed forces.
Looking at the silent audience, he said: “Ghassemlou is the culprit. The KDPI is a nest of saboteurs and corrupt people. The party is banned. And Ghassemlou must be punished.
Without raising his voice, he asked: “Is Ghassemlou here?”
No one answered as people looked around at each other. Khomeini fixed his gaze upon the Council members and with all the fury concentrated in his carbon dark eyes he exclaimed: Why did you tell him that he was a “mofsed fil arz”, a corrupt person! Why did you scare him away? If that dog Ghassemlou had come today, we would have sent him directly to hell!
Reality TV, Khomeini style!
Perhaps in talking today about the many achievements of Dr. Ghassemlou we should begin with the question: Why was he assassinated?
Ghassemlou visiting the Peshmarga forces of Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan
He was assassinated not only for being the leader of the Kurds of Iran, but more than that, because of the type of man he was – his beliefs and the difficult choices he made were unlike those of other traditional leaders in the region.
Different from other Kurds, Dr. Ghassemlou was perhaps the harbinger of real unity among the Kurdish people. His enemies had rightfully perceived his unspoken destiny and this would become a direct threat to them.
It is important to note that, Dr. Ghassemlou was not a traditional tribal leader. His ideological itinerary traveled from an orthodox Marxism-Leninism to Social Democracy in the course of his life. He was an empathetic leader and a cultivated man who spoke seven languages and possessed an inherent strength and wisdom that endeared him to his people. He had a refined sense of humor and loved life.
Unlike other Middle East leaders that fancy democratic ideals but are discouraged by the risks in pursuing them, Dr. Ghassemlou had the courage to manifest his democratic and humanistic vision, as well as put forward his political program within an Islamic society.
Ghassemlou with a female westerner in the mountain of Kurdistan
Not only did he defend human rights, but also women’s rights – long before it became a must in the international scene. In the Kurdish society during Ghassemlou’s life, women’s rights were non existent – and still they are far from being achieved.
In the unfortunate war in Iraq, there has been one beneficiary: Kurdistan. Although unity across Iraq seems difficult, Kurdistan has managed to achieve an unequalled degree of national unity under the Regional Autonomous Government.
Dr. Ghassemlou recognized that there existed a Kurdish irredentism and that integration was scarce in the countries where they live, that their language was alive despite intentions to drown their cultural identity. The Kurds, after resisting the woes that for centuries befell their nation, began to develop a national consciousness in the twentieth century.
As Dr. Ghassemlou once said, “Nowadays, it is natural to have a Kurdish demand for independence, for the realization of a national Kurdish project. An independent Kurdistan would be a state without access to the sea. Yet at the same time, it would be a state rich in oil and, especially, in possession of unique resources. Water is much coveted in the Middle East and could spark future wars in this region. Without oil, people are poor; without water, they cannot survive. As everyone knows, the great reserves of water are in Kurdistan.”
Dr. Ghassemlou was the first Kurdish leader to come up with a solution that overcame the obstacles inhibiting the creation of a Kurdish state and that is why he accepted a realistic plan: to renounce independence and instead choose the path of autonomy.
Ghassemlou and Carol Prunhuber, Madrid 1986
He understood both the weaknesses and strengths of the Kurds. He was a tolerant man of dialogue who maintained his calm in stressful situations. Because he was respected for his political and intellectual wisdom about the Kurds, including his keen sense of diplomacy and international perspective, his vast culture and his charisma, he was able to bring opposing political parties to a negotiation table.
Dr. Ghassemlou knew that unity among the Kurds was of prime importance. In fact, he was tormented by the division among the Kurds. Politics in this part of the world paralyzed any forward movement. Nothing lasted; no agreement was respected.
For the Kurds had a tribal concept of politics, based on the unconditional support of their chief, not of a particular political program. All of this became the Achilles heel of the Kurdish movement, making it ever vulnerable to the manipulations of regional governments.
Dr. Ghassemlou understood that only through unification could the Kurds achieve their demands. He worked hard for this goal, to end fighting among the Kurds. He was a prudent man whose essential nature was to unify. His impassioned wish was to educate his people and this showed in the respect and love he held for them.
GHassemlou, alongside his wife, Helen Krulich, known as Nasrin GHassemlou
When visiting his men at the military hospital, he knew their names and would speak with them about their family, their village and listen intently to what they had to say.
Long before environmental issues came to the fore, he discouraged his people from clear cutting the forests and unnecessarily killing wildlife. This was a man who once said, “You cannot find happiness; you have to create it. If you don’t create it, you will never find it.”
This same leader played intermediary between Mustapha Barzani and Saddam Hussein in the 70’s; between Jalal Talabani and the Iraqi government in the 80’s.
He supported Barzani because he considered him to be the most important representative of the Kurds; yet over the years, Dr. Ghassemlou also questioned his stewardship on many issues.
In an interview, Dr. Ghassemlou once recalled that he had been especially incensed by Barzani’s refusal to compromise on Kirkuk in the mid 70’s, when negotiating an autonomy plan with the Iraqi government.
Can you imagine that? Barzani turned down Saddam Hussein’s proposal, first to give the Kurds 50% of the oil revenues and then 75% — and finally Saddam made the offer that since Kirkuk was the main obstacle, they should divide the city into two parts. Even today, Kirkuk continues to be a battleground between the Kurds and Arabs.
One of the many protests held by Kurds acrros the globe to demand justice
Dr. Ghassemlou regretted this decision, for he felt it compromised the pan-Kurdish cause. He said: “The Kurds haven’t achieved anything politically because they have applied more emotion than reason to politics. They asked for all or for nothing. You cannot be black or white in politics. What’s possible today is not possible tomorrow. I think Barzani should have accepted the Kirkuk deal, consolidated autonomy and fought in the future for the rest of the Kurdish goals.
“If Kurdistan had been autonomous and Barzani kept his troops, when the revolution happened in Iran in 1979, the Iranian Kurds would have been in a better position.
“It’s normal that for those who govern Baghdad or Tehran, to want to safeguard the integrity of their country. We Kurds understand this.
“In politics it’s not intention that counts, but the relation of forces. If the Kurds had been capable of consolidating their autonomy, Baghdad would have had to accept a fait accompli. The failure of the March 1979 negotiations was a repetition of the failures of Kurdish history. The balance of forces was in favor of the Iraqi Kurds. They should have realized this.”
On an international level, Ghassemlou’s education and experience made him one of the few Kurdish leaders intently familiar with other cultures. He developed a true knowledge of the West from his education in Paris and Prague. Due to this developed socio-cultural awareness, he was able to justly win the ears, if not the support of foreign powers.
Dr. Ghassemlou along with his aid, Ghaderi-Azar, a few day prior their assassination and the scene of the murder
He held a Doctorate in Political and Economical Science and became a professor at University of Prague where he taught economic growth and development. Ghassemlou was an unusually cultivated man who would one day be reading a book of Sufi Poetry and the next a volume on European Literature, listening to a Kurdish song or a Mozart piano concerto.
He always maintained his independence. First and foremost, his primary goal and leading principle was to support the Kurdish cause. Dr. Ghassemlou never accepted the idea that a leader could sell out his Kurdish brothers across the border for the sake of personal or parochial interests. He had not forgotten the lesson of the Kurds in Iran who had been abandoned by their brothers to the hands of the Shah.
And let us not forget how similarly years later, after his death, the Islamic regime in Tehran was given a free hand to operate militarily against Kurds inside Iraqi Kurdistan.
Even though it led an armed struggle against Iran, Ghassemlou’s party was perhaps the only Third World revolutionary movement that opposed popular terrorist methods – especially at that time.
About this he said: “As a democratic organization we have always opposed all acts of terrorism, be it hijacking of planes, taking hostages, putting bombs or any action that threatens the lives and security of civilians. To renounce our principles and thus loose our image as a responsible, democratic and humanitarian party, in return for fleeting publicity is both vain and useless.”
Not only did he oppose any hostage taking in the 80’s, but he was instrumental in the liberation of several French hostages, and even paid for their freedom with weapons on one occasion and another monetarily.
Trapped by the geopolitical situation of Kurdistan, Dr. Ghassemlou had lived and worked in Iraq on and off, and maintained contact with the Iraqi regime. Yet he never collaborated with Baghdad against Iran.
Ghassemlou and Current Iraqi President Jalal Talabani
He was not a ‘business as usual’ kind of man. Due to his principles, he could not be bought or cajoled into making overnight deals for the Kurdish cause.
He was in a difficult position regarding Iraq. In private he spoke about the horrors of the Iraqi regime, yet he was obliged to be discreet about it publicly.
Almost too modern for his time, Dr. Ghassemlou’s political stature was a unifying force. His understanding of the ways of the world and his close ties and relations with politicians, journalists and academics in Europe and beyond, gave him a pragmatic approach that others lacked.
He had also foreseen his own end. For years he had thought about writing his autobiography, but the amount of work and the internal problems of the party did not allow him to do so.
A year before he died, Dr. Ghassemlou told me that if he ever wrote his story, it would have begun like this: “On many occasions, Kurdish leaders have been assassinated due to treason by the Persian authorities. It happened with Jafar Agha and later with Simko, one of our most important contemporary leaders. While Simko’s blood ran through the streets in a nearby house, a boy was being born. That boy would be me.”
“Did it really happen like this?” I questioned.
No,” he answered. “Simko was murdered June 1930, the same year I was born but not the same day. Do you realize how strong that beginning is? One a Kurdish leader dies and at the same time another is being born.”
Some Kurds believe that if Dr. Ghassemlou had lived, he would have been able to further the cause for all Kurds. It is difficult today to say what role he could have played.
Were he alive today, there’s no doubt Dr. Ghassemlou would look upon the progress made in Iraqi Kurdistan with hope -for its continued solidarity and growth into the 21st century.
One thing is very certain: throughout his life, Abdul Rahman Ghassemlou never limited himself to being just an Iranian Party chief.
He lived as a farsighted leader and above all, a KURD – who held a dream for Kurdistan and overarching love for his people – in the end, giving up his life while reaching for that dream.
We honor his life here today. In these turbulent times, we can remember his unwavering spirit and light that lives on in the hearts and craggy mountains of a nation called Kurdistan.
This piece was originally presented at the House of Lords in London in 2008 on Dr. Ghassemlou’s anniversary.
Carol Prunhuber is the author of The Passion and Death of Rahman the Kurd: Dreaming Kurdistan (iUniverse, 2009), which has been published in Spanish, Turkish and Kurdish. Through Gamma TV, Prunhuber traveled to Iranian Kurdistan in 1985 to film the struggle of the Kurds in Iran. She currently writes for the Venezuelan journal El Nacional and travels extensively speaking on the Kurdish issue.
