Nearly 400 gazelles go missing in Diyala province reserve
Also in Iraq
Iraqi Supreme Judicial Council approves top judge's retirement
KRG delegation arrives in Baghdad amid efforts to resolve financial disputes
Iraq's Victory Coalition to skip election
Iraq's marshlands are drying up
A+ A-
ERBIL, Kurdistan Region - Nearly all of the 400 gazelles in an animal reserve in Diyala province's Mandali district have gone missing, its mayor said on Sunday, who also called for an immediate investigation amid suspicions of theft or smuggling.
Ali al-Zuhairi told Rudaw that only ten gazelles remain and that it is unclear when or how the animals disappeared, adding that there is suspicion that they were 'stolen or sold through smuggling.'
He urged authorities to launch an immediate investigation.
The missing animals are goitered gazelles (Gazella subgutturosa), also known as black-tailed gazelles, a species native to Iraq that is increasingly threatened by habitat loss, illegal hunting, and climate change.
'This phenomenon poses a major threat to environmental biodiversity and requires swift action by relevant parties to hold violators accountable and protect the remaining endangered animal resources in the country,' Zuhairi added.
Diyala police spokesperson Haitham al-Shamari told Rudaw that they have not been officially notified of the disappearances.
Iraq has long struggled with illegal wildlife trafficking, driven by years of instability, weak enforcement, and high demand in regional black markets. Falcons from Iraq's southern plains and rare birds and foxes from the mountains of the Kurdistan Region are frequently targeted by traffickers. Rare animals are also regularly smuggled into Iraq to be sold at high prices.
Although Iraq signed the Convention on the Protection of Animals in 2014 - which aims to regulate the global trade in wildlife and animal products - illegal trafficking remains widespread across the country.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rudaw Net
an hour ago
- Rudaw Net
Kurdish education won't divide Turkey, says politician
Also in Interview Germany must recognize Kurds by ethnicity: Kurdish-German MP Diplomacy with Tehran fading as Israel-Iran tensions escalate: Ex-US negotiator German official urges strict migration policies, welcomes PKK dissolution Druze leader denounces Syria's constitutional declaration as 'tyranny' A+ A- Ankara should not take Kurdish demands for education in their mother tongue as a threat to Turkey's unity, Zekeriya Yapicioglu, leader of the Free Cause Party (Huda Par), told Rudaw in an interview on June 18. 'Education in the mother tongue is not just for Kurds. It is a fundamental right for everyone," Yapicioglu said when asked about the potential for Kurdish education at Turkey's schools. "We planned, as an objective, that everyone who wants will be able to receive education in their mother tongue after grade five. This relaxes the country. If the official language is Turkish, everyone should learn it. Everyone learns it anyway. But education in the mother tongue does not divide this country. I think it takes away the trump card from the hands of people who try to provoke different elements of this country against each other, who try to set them against each other with bad intentions," he added. Under Turkey's education system, Kurds are allowed to study in their mother tongue at school for a few hours a week through elective courses that require a minimum of 10 students. Huda Par is a Kurdish Islamist political party. It is allied with the ruling political alliance in Turkey. Yapicioglu touched on his party's stance on the latest developments in the region and the status of Kurds. The Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) decided in May to dissolve itself and end its armed struggle as part of peace talks with Ankara. Yapicioglu said he expects the PKK to take "concrete steps" to lay down arms in the summer. "We hope and pray that the laying down of arms will happen, but even if it doesn't, the steps that need to be taken must definitely be taken without being tied to that condition," he said. The interview has been shortened for the sake of clarity. Rudaw: There is an ongoing war between Israel and Iran. Mutual attacks continue. How do you evaluate this situation as Huda Par. What do you forecast? Zekeriya Yapicioglu: We have been saying this from the beginning. Actually, it is something that everyone who knows Zionism will accept and acknowledge that Zionism is the most dangerous ideological racism and practice in the world. The structure fed by this practice and this thought, that is with that Zionist philosophy, Zionist thought, the terrorist organization called Israel - actually, a thousand witnesses are needed to call it a state - wants to continue its vitality and existence by constantly attacking and creating instability around itself. Remember, right after [Operation] al-Aqsa Flood on October 7, 2023, when American and some European countries' warships headed to the region, Turkey made this statement: 'The real target is Turkey.' Iran also made statements saying 'actually Iran is the target, they are trying to draw us into this war.' We also said that day, yes, they have such a goal. The target is both Iran, Turkey, Iraq, and Jordan. Today, maybe Jordan is helping the Zionist terror regime to shoot down missiles fired from Iran over its territory, but we said Jordan is also a target. They have a belief. There is an area they call the Promised Land, which includes all the territories of the Kurdistan Region. A part of Iran, a significant part of Turkey, all of Syria, Jordan and almost all of Iraq are within these lands they call the Promised Land. And they believe that those lands have been promised to them by God. They say 'We will maintain dominance in those lands.' They don't hide this, they say it very openly. Therefore, this is a matter of time, not whether it will happen or not. We said that day that an attack on Iran is a matter of time. They will attack when they believe the time has come. They don't need any excuse for this. They will attack when they think of attacking. When the time comes that they think of including Turkey in the war, they will include Turkey in some way. What kind of role and position should Turkey take in your opinion? What needs to be seen is this. The only language Jews understand is power. If they understand that their lives will be seriously hurt when they attack you, they will refrain from attacking you. There is no other moral rule, no legal rule, no international custom that will stop them. Let no one deceive themselves. But if you have enough power in your hands, if they know that their lives will be hurt when they attack you, they won't attack. Maybe they will even try to get along, friendly. Should Turkey use force or stand by Iran? It should stand by humanity. Right now, this war is not an Israel-Iran war. Just as the war that started a year ago was not an Israel-Hamas war. It is Israel's war with humanity. This Zionist structure, this mentality is the biggest obstacle to regional peace. As long as they exist in the region and as long as they have this mentality, peace and tranquility will never come to the region. Zionism is the biggest threat to world peace. Therefore, Turkey should be on the side of humanity. Actually, not only Muslims but everyone who is human, everyone who can remain human, everyone with a conscience should realize the danger and see that this danger is setting the world on fire. Everyone should pour whatever water they have in their bucket onto this fire. The current regime in Iran is a very oppressive regime. We know and see that there is very serious pressure especially on Kurds. It's also a fact that executions happen every day. What would you like to say about this, especially when you think about the political and social life of Kurds in western Iran (Rojhelat)? Would you favor the continuation of the same status quo or should there be a change in this direction? Undoubtedly, the existence of oppression in a place is not just related to the name of the regime there. Therefore, information coming from different channels about the problems experienced there names it differently. My faith commands me to stop oppression wherever it is. God absolutely commands justice. No matter who does it, injustice is injustice. Therefore, it is said that this stems from the structure of the regime, but for example, were Kurds very comfortable during the previous regime, the Shah regime? Especially during the single-party period in Turkey, that was when the greatest oppression was applied, in the first years of the republic during the single-party period. But today, those who are in alliance with that single party say in a different way that Kurds saw the greatest pressure and oppression during the AKP government periods. Just because someone says so doesn't mean it's true. As a Kurdish politician, as the leader of a Kurdish party, shouldn't you oppose the pressure of the current status quo in Iran on the freedom of Kurds there, especially keeping a pressure card like execution constantly alive? It's very fashionable to oppose the death penalty just because it's the death penalty, but I think the punishment for some crimes should be execution, because of what was done, I mean. But first of all, laws should be applied equally to everyone. If they are not applied equally to everyone, if laws are applied differently to someone according to their identity, social status or wealth, or if some people apply this execution against people they see as rivals or dangerous politically, if they apply it against innocent people, if it is used as a weapon, then this execution is a very dangerous weapon. Therefore, there should be no death penalty. But I believe some people deserve execution. For example, I think a person who kills an innocent person, an innocent child without cause, for profit, should have no punishment other than execution. What is the formula your party envisions for Kurds in Iran? Would you want them to have status? What kind of status should they have? Actually, we have been saying from the beginning about the Kurdish issue, in Iraq's Kurdistan Region or in Iran's Kurdistan region, there is a dense Kurdish population in several provinces there. Every place has its own specific conditions. For example, in one place, people can discuss that 'federation is not enough' and say 'there should be independence.' Indeed, remember that a referendum was held in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region. They asked the people 'Should we declare independence?' A large majority sided with independence. Now, where is the most advanced place in terms of the status Kurds have? Iraqi Kurdistan Region. There is a federative structure, they have their own parliament, their own president, prime minister, governments. Peshmerga provides internal security there. But despite this, some discomfort arose due to the non-implementation of some articles of the Iraqi constitution and a referendum was held there. We said then that maybe we can make some recommendations, but we have no right to interfere in the internal affairs of the people there. Kurds in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region know their situation better and everyone should respect whatever decision they make. What falls to us is this. Let us fulfill our responsibility if a responsibility falls on us regarding ensuring peace and tranquility there. But we did not see ourselves as having the right to put ourselves in their place and make decisions on their behalf. It's the same for Kurds in Iran. The people there should decide what the most suitable situation is for them. While making this decision, they should really take into account the peace of the people there and be aware of some imperial calculations. I'm hoping to get a clearer answer. Kurds in Iran - some political parties currently think that the current regime should be overthrown and a more libertarian regime should come. If all Kurdish parties have such a demand in this direction and such a process begins in Iran, what would be your attitude? Would your relations with Iran allow you to support this demand? Will things really go to that point? Yes, we actually followed it. Such a call came from some, for example from Iran's KDP, saying 'the regime must be overthrown.' I honestly don't have very detailed information about the regime's relationship with Kurds there, especially with those parties. I haven't focused on the subject enough to analyze it. But if Kurds there unanimously say something like that, then we definitely need to go and see what's happening there. Let's come to the recent process, the ongoing peace process in Turkey or what the state labels the 'terror-free Turkey' process. A process started with MHP leader Devlet Bahceli's call and continues. Where are you as Huda Par in this process? Actually, since this process started and even before it started, there was something we constantly repeated. We were saying that weapons and violence cannot and should not be a method of seeking rights and must definitely be abandoned. As far as I understood, this process was carried out between the National Intelligence Organization (MIT) and the PKK for a long time, and after reaching a certain maturity, it was declared by Mr. Bahceli. He said something on the day parliament opened, then on October 22 he said if he [PKK founder Abdullah Ocalan] disbands the organization and the era of weapons is over, let him come and speak in the DEM Party [Peoples' Equality and Democracy Party] group. He set the bar very high. We said about this, yes, this must definitely happen. But as we did before, two issues should not be confused. Maybe one dimension of the problem is the violence dimension, but the Kurdish issue is not just about violence. We constantly say this. We even wrote it in our party program. If the Kurdish issue is seen only as violence, a public order problem, or partially as regional economic backwardness, this problem cannot be solved. The problem has political dimensions, social dimension, psychological dimension, and even an international dimension. Therefore, this problem should be seen with all these dimensions and steps towards a solution should be taken accordingly. Today, if two issues are mixed or one is seen as a condition of the other, there is a risk of the solution and this process getting stuck. After all, a similar process was experienced ten years ago. We said this at that time too. We said this is a matter of rights and law. I am not a PKK member, I don't have weapons. But if you want something outside my will to grant me a right, I demand, for example if you tie it to the condition of PKK laying down arms, you have no right to do this. I cannot make the PKK drop the weapons in their hands. Neither can I influence them nor can I take it by force. There are very large masses of people who are not PKK members. Even those who think the PKK has harmed them, who have been seriously victimized by the PKK, they have legitimate and reasonable demands. Why should we tie these to the condition of PKK laying down arms? Does the government or its partners ask for your opinion in this process? What do you suggest regarding the continuation of this process? We meet and we say these things I mentioned. We say that we went through a process ten years ago. Our warnings about that were not taken into account then, don't make the same mistakes now. You actually suggest solving it within the framework of brotherhood law, but this brotherhood law discourse is a somewhat vague discourse. What exactly do you suggest? With constitutional change, for example federation, autonomy? What is the model you suggest? Or should it continue within the existing system? We have always said that everyone says we are brothers. We say it too, yes we are brothers. But let's not be content with just talking about this brotherhood. Until now, there's been plenty of talk about it. But the law of brotherhood needs to be realized, this law needs to be fulfilled. What is that law? Whatever you have, let your brother have it too. A Kurd wants the same right that a Turk has. No less, no more. Since our grandfathers founded this state together, since they fought together on the front in the War of Independence 100 years ago, fought side by side and fell as martyrs, since they are joint owners of this homeland, and Kurds were already here when Turks came. Concretely, how should this brotherhood law be reflected in the constitution in your opinion? In the constitutional matter, we say that the preamble of the constitution should be short and concise. It should be purified of ethnic emphasis. Ethnic-based emphasis should be strongly avoided throughout the constitution. The definition of citizenship is one of these. We say there must absolutely be a constitution purified of tutelage institutions and that ideology, it should be a constitution made by civilians. Now if you can empathize, if you see yourself as equal to the person you call your brother, there should be equality in rights. No one should be excluded or treated unfairly because of their ethnic identity, sectarian identity, or even their belief. That is, they should neither be excluded nor favored. As a party within the People's Alliance, do you also tell this to other stakeholders? And what do you expect? Will there be education in your mother tongue in your opinion? We think it absolutely should be. Education in the mother tongue is not just for Kurds. It is a fundamental right for everyone. You put it forward as a will, you say I recognize this as a right, and I'm starting preparations for it. We planned, as an objective, that everyone who wants will be able to receive education in their mother tongue after grade five. This relaxes the country. If the official language is Turkish, everyone should learn it. Everyone learns it anyway. But education in the mother tongue does not divide this country. I think it takes away the trump card from the hands of people who try to provoke different elements of this country against each other, who try to set them against each other with bad intentions. You are also one of the partners of the People's Alliance. PKK was presenting this to the state as a precondition for laying down arms. They said they would lay down arms. They made a decision. After all, the congress made such a decision. After this stage, eyes are on the state, but this period seems to be extending a bit. What's going on in the state's internal corridors? As far as I can see, the situation is this, the state is following the process. Will what is being said really happen or not? A decision was made but will this decision be put into practice or not? The state is looking at that and is also waiting for that decision to be put into practice in this sense. They don't want to give the impression that the steps to be taken have been tied to this condition, made a subject of bargaining. They are waiting so that such an image doesn't form. They say we hope to see this practice within the next two or three months. Hopefully it will happen, weapons will actually be laid down. That also appears between the lines of the statements made by those speaking on behalf of the government or the state. They hope to see with concrete steps that those weapons have been laid down at the latest in July or August, in these summer months. We hope and pray that the laying down of arms will happen, but even if it doesn't, the steps that need to be taken must definitely be taken without being tied to that condition. When this process between PKK and the state reaches a point and it's possible that DEM Party joins the People's Alliance, what happens, what do you foresee as two Kurdish parties whose chemistry doesn't match? When the DEM Party comes there, they certainly won't ask Huda Par, or when AKP [Justice and Development Party] conducts these negotiations with the DEM Party and invites them under the umbrella of the People's Alliance, they won't make it conditional on our acceptance. After all, we say there should be dialogue between all political parties. Of course, we may have differences. There are many points where we think differently from the AKP. There are many points where we differ from MHP [Nationalist Movement Party]. But ultimately, we entered elections together within the same alliance, under the umbrella of the People's Alliance. Now you saw on October 1 those who directed very harsh criticism at each other or strongly criticized our being side by side with Mr. Bahceli in Malazgirt. For example, during Eid-related visits, MHP and DEM Party went and exchanged holiday greetings with each other. What happened? Did MHP ideologically approach the DEM Party, or did the DEM Party become like MHP? Which one? I think neither. Ocalan had once described you, Huda Par, as the MHP of the Kurds. I don't take what Ocalan says very seriously. When we founded Huda Par, Ocalan was talking as if we knew each other very well and were military buddies: 'They don't even have money to go eat at a restaurant, how did they found a party?' So sometimes he talks like that. Sometimes it's not very clear what he's saying. In fact, he makes a very special and intense effort so that it's not understood… People criticize your party about Rojava (northeast Syria). Of course, no one can say anything about your sensitivity about Gaza, but it is thought that you remain silent about Rojava. Your lack of any statement or evaluation of the situation when attacks happened in Afrin is criticized. We have hundreds of statements about Rojava, about Afrin, or about events happening in other parts of Syria. But unfortunately, we encounter such things a lot. We say something, three days later, a week later, a month later, someone says why don't you have a statement about such and such issue? Well, we did. 'But I didn't see it,' they say. What can we do? Now some also compare this. Look, what is happening in Gaza cannot be compared with what is happening anywhere else in the world. For example, they say 'that place is under occupation, Palestine is under occupation, isn't the place where you live, Kurdistan, also under occupation?' Who is occupying Kurdistan? There were conflicts in Rojava. Equating the conflicts in Rojava with the genocide in Gaza is, first of all, an insult to justice. This cannot happen. But we've been saying that from the beginning. They say 'you held a rally for Gaza but not for Rojava. You didn't do anything for Rojava.' Those who killed Yasin Boru and his friends, who were taking sacrificial meat to Rojava so that people who escaped from Rojava, from the oppression there, from the massacre there, wouldn't go hungry, in the most savage way the world could see, tell us what did you do for Rojava? [ *Editor's note: Boru was killed in 2014 during Kobane protests while reportedly taking food to people in Rojava]. What did you do other than talk? You just talked. We held their hands. We also talked. We also said that the massacres were oppression. But we didn't just talk, we didn't just talk. We actually tried to hold the hands of our brothers there. But maybe we couldn't advertise it as much as they did. They did nothing. They just talked and constantly told us that we didn't do anything. But comparing the two with each other is not something my conscience, my humanity can bear. How can you equate what happened in Rojava, what happened in Diyarbakir, and what happened in Gaza? What do you suggest for Rojava? Would you have attended if you had been invited to the conference in Qamishli? And what is your view on the autonomy demand that emerged there? As I said earlier, people everywhere know their own conditions and situations better. We respect the decisions they have made about their own situations. Of course, we may have suggestions. You said you would attend, right, if you had been invited to Qamishli? Of course. But we don't see ourselves as having the right to make decisions on their behalf. Look, for example, at that time some were defining us as enemy brothers, but we also warned the PYD [Democratic Union Party]. We said, right now America is giving you weapons, giving you direction. Don't think America is your friend… If America and Turkey agree one day, they will spend you like coins. Be aware of this, know this. For example, when an autonomous structure was formed in Rojava, they took people's children and raised them according to what? They injected their own ideology into them. They took the Muslim's child and made them atheist. This is oppression. Now what will happen there? Right now, people there, people in Syria should know that the situation there will be shaped according to the agreement that America and Turkey will reach. After all, there is a Kurdish administration there. Today, an agreement was reached with other parties too. Is it a Kurdish administration or a PYD administration? With the conference in Qamishli, ENKS was also included. Doesn't this reassure you? I don't know. Time will tell. Before, when the events first started there, ENKS was there too, meetings were held. They came together in Dohuk. Then when power fell into someone's hands, what happened? If there is a practice, I said something earlier; when discussing the Kurdish issue, don't build the future on the past but don't forget the past either. If you forget the past, what happened in the past can happen again and again in the future. There are past experiences. Where did the Roj Peshmerga go, where did they stay, why couldn't they return? Leaders of some parties there were killed in assassinations. Some were exiled abroad. When those exiled abroad wanted to return there, their way was blocked. These are experienced realities. Hopefully they won't repeat in the future. People there, in general, make decisions about their future. What did they want, which governance model did they want, they should decide on this. But they should be able to decide freely, not imposed by someone under the shadow of weapons. Do you have an exchange of views with the government about Turkey establishing relations and making it a livable place for everyone? We said not just now but in the previous period too, and we said that Kurds there are oppressed. During the Bashar al-Assad period, a significant portion didn't even have identity cards. We told Turkey 'You have both historical ties and millions of Kurdish citizens within Turkey, and almost all of those there are relatives of Kurds living here. Borders were drawn in such a way, and these borders were not drawn by the will of the people living here. So much so that the father stayed on one side, the son on the other. The mother stayed on one side, her daughter on the other. The coop stayed on one side, the chicken on the other, the cow stayed on one side, the calf on the other. Such injustices happened. Therefore, half of the family is on one side, half on the other. See this reality and extend your hand of brotherhood to the people there accordingly. Know that they are your brothers. In fact, as a strong country in the region, be their protector. Not just Kurds in Syria, but also for the Iraqi Kurdistan Region.' Again, one of the issues our brothers there [Kurdistan Region] raised in negotiations is this. They say 'We have two pipes. One is the breathing pipe, the other is the food pipe. Both pass through Turkey.' We also told the government at the time: 'They [Kurdistan Region] say we want to improve our relations with Ankara and see them rather than seeing the Baghdad government and Tehran. Show them that you are brothers, make them feel it and fulfill the requirements of that brotherhood. You won't lose from this.' We constantly say the same thing. Here, on your program, we have repeated this once again. Ocalan also proposes a formula where Kurds, Arabs, Persians and Turks can live together with a supra-national formula, a brotherhood law. Is that so? I don't know. At least that's the discourse. That's the discourse… Actually, Abdullah Ocalan says 'I have surpassed [Karl] Marx too, now I am your new ideologue, the whole world will find peace in my ideology. You will get to know me better. I will bring peace to the whole world. That's why you should get to know the Apoist spirit well, understand it and apply it, your salvation is in it.' And this is as far from us as black is from white. Your concrete proposal is a formula for living together with Iraq, Iran, Syria, Kurds and other elements of those countries, based on maintaining current situations. No, not just maintaining current situations. We say that no system, no model is taboo. For example, until 150 years ago, kingdoms were accepted as the most perfect system, right? They collapsed and went. What happened? Now no one is in favor of kingdoms. In fact, everyone complains about kingdoms. A model that seemed very good for a period. Maybe kingdoms could be the best in the conditions of that period. Since I didn't live in that period, I can't know as well as people who lived in that period. Maybe after a while, the needs of the age will change, people will think of new things, suggest new things. We also say when talking about the constitution, let's not make the constitution rigid. This system may seem very good to you today. It may even seem perfect. But after all, something that is human speech, even if it seems perfect, gets old over time. Therefore, there may be autonomous regions for one place. In some places, there may be a federative structure. In some places, there may be corporate federalism, as in Belgium. There are certainly female politicians in Huda Par, but are they in a more invisible area? No, they are also in the visible area. We have female members of the general administrative board, we have a female deputy chairman. We had female parliamentary candidates, mayoral candidates, city council member candidates. But we don't give someone a duty just because she is a woman, based on quotas. Or we don't refrain from giving someone a duty just because she is a woman: you are a woman, you can't have a say in the party's administration, you can't take a duty, we don't have such a position. But you are a woman, we have this much gap, come even if you can't do this job just because you are a woman, come stand in the showcase, we don't do that either. Especially with being in the People's Alliance, you also have some advantageous situations in the region and bureaucracy. What do you propose in terms of political economy? For example, what is Huda Par's economic policy regarding Kurdish workers and the Kurdish poor? A worker is a worker, and a poor person is poor. We don't separate as Kurdish, Turkish, Arab, Laz, Circassian. After all, we say that labor should be given its due. We say that the worker's right should be given in full before their sweat dries. Unfortunately, in the current system, the system always works against the low-income and the poor. For example, we have been saying this for years, we said it's not right to tax someone on minimum wage. People pay taxes again when they spend what they earn. The minimum wage earner doesn't pay tax when earning but pays tax when spending. Those who earn a lot should pay a lot, those who earn little should pay little. In fact, we say those who don't have the power to pay taxes shouldn't pay any taxes at all. We persistently say this…
Rudaw Net
an hour ago
- Rudaw Net
Germany must recognize Kurds by ethnicity: Kurdish-German MP
Also in Interview Kurdish education won't divide Turkey, says politician Diplomacy with Tehran fading as Israel-Iran tensions escalate: Ex-US negotiator German official urges strict migration policies, welcomes PKK dissolution Druze leader denounces Syria's constitutional declaration as 'tyranny' A+ A- BERLIN - A Kurdish member of Germany's federal parliament (Bundestag) said that Kurds must be recognized by their ethnicity rather than their countries of origin, regretting that the state's neglect of ethnicity weakens the Kurdish base in the country. 'A main problem is that Germany doesn't know how many Kurds are in Germany. And why? Because we are classified as Turkish, Iranian, Iraqi, and Syrian, but this weakens us because we have a strong base. There's an opportunity for our voice to be heard,' Ferat Kocak, from the Left Party (Die Linke), told Rudaw on June 7. He noted that if Germany knew its number of Kurdish voters, it would strengthen the Kurds' voice. 'That's why it's important for me that we can change laws so Kurds are recognized as Kurds, and it no longer matters whether they came from Turkey, Iran, Iraq, or Syria. We are Kurds of Kurdistan.' Another issue pointed out by Kocak was the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Social Democratic Party's (SPD) anti-migration policies. Most Kurds in the country have fled difficult circumstances and could face persecution upon their return, according to Kocak, who referred to an example of an elderly woman and her daughter. 'We stopped the deportation of two Kurdish women some time ago - an elderly woman and a young girl. They had rebelled against Iran's regime. Both were supposed to be deported to Iran. We had to raise our voices, talk to politicians, bring people to the airport to stop their deportation. What's happening is inhumane,' the lawmaker said. 'This immigration-restrictive policy is inhumane and against humanity,' he stressed. Germany hosts one of the largest refugee populations worldwide. Tens of thousands of mostly young people leave Iraq and the Kurdistan Region for Europe annually in search of a better life, using smuggling routes. Many hope to settle in Germany. The following is the transcript of the interview with Ferat Kocak. Rudaw: What is your and your party's (the Left Party) opinion on all these measures by Germany's new government regarding the tightening of immigration policy? When we see borders being controlled and even deportations happening now. How much do you agree with this, and what can you and your party do? Ferat Kocak: The CDU and SPD parties are implementing an immigration policy that was emphasized by the AfD during the election campaign: closing borders and deporting people. This also affects Kurds, especially Yazidis who are being deported back to the sites of genocides, or those who have received residence permits are being deported. This immigration-restrictive policy is inhumane and against humanity. I am also Kurdish, Kurds endeavour [for their rights], and I always work for human rights and help people. What can our party do? We are in opposition, we can help people and we can raise our voices to prevent deportations and help those who are in difficult situations. What specific aspects of the German government's immigration policy are you particularly opposed to? We are fundamentally opposed to this type of immigration policy. I always say "no human being is illegal." People have reasons for fleeing to Germany, whether it's war, oppression, or hunger. We Kurds ourselves have this experience, so this is a fundamental criticism that demands a different immigration policy. Particularly regarding border closures - as we know, Europe was founded with the intention that borders be open and people come together. This regression is against European law. Also, the manner of deportations - when people are arrested for deportation, women and children and innocent people and those who left to achieve a better life. We want to prevent this. In my opinion, particularly arrest for deportation is wrong. Those who don't have the right to stay should be deported according to law, but I always say we need to change the law. There are many reasons why people flee, but we must also look at how Germany exports weapons that end up in the hands of ISIS, and with those weapons Yazidis and Kurds are killed. Therefore, we share responsibility for why these people flee. That's why we need to connect many points. Germany says we don't have money - Germany is one of the richest countries in the world, but the wealth is distributed incorrectly. We just need to collect taxes from the wealthy so there's money for cities, schools, hospitals, civil servants, and people. Then people will also be calmer. What CDU and SPD are doing is trying to win the votes of AfD's extremists. This policy is fundamentally wrong. The government wants to add countries to its list of safe countries without the parliament's supreme council. How do you evaluate this democratically? It is anti-democratic. There are organizations to protect democracy in Germany. Fundamentally, the federal government is violating the principles of democracy. Let's use us Kurds as an example: if Turkey is a safe country and Kurdish political activists, those who were active against racism, are deported there, they will face imprisonment and persecution there. This is against humanity. We stopped the deportation of two Kurdish women some time ago - an elderly woman and a young girl. They had rebelled against Iran's regime. Both were supposed to be deported to Iran. We had to raise our voices, talk to politicians, and bring people to the airport to stop their deportation. What's happening is inhumane. That's why we need to raise our voices in politics, in opposition, and organize ourselves in civil society to save those who face deportation. You mentioned deportation. The new cabinet wants to abolish the automatic provision of lawyers for those facing deportation orders. How much impact will this have on justice, the process, and asylum seekers' rights? How can you prevent this process? The problem here is that 50 percent of those arrested for deportation are there "illegally" - that's what the courts say, not me. If they don't have legal counsel, they cannot save themselves from this situation in any way. We cannot participate in this. Those who face this situation need to receive legal counsel. Are many Kurds being deported? In my team, I have four Kurds with me. Do they contact you? How do you help them? We have an expert and advisor in immigration policy. We work with lawyers and refugee councils so people receive direct help. What we can do as parliamentarians is raise public awareness. We know where the relevant contact points are to provide assistance. Currently our focus is on Berlin. I'm an expert here because I'm a member of the state parliament and we need to know how it is in other states. If there's a case in Berlin, I can definitely help. How good and important is it to have Kurds in the federal parliament? We currently have seven lawmakers who seriously want to work on Kurdish issues. Within the Left Party (Die Linke) we are five people, one from the Green Party and one from the Social Democrats. I demand that we need more Kurds in the German parliament, also within the CDU. It's important to bring our issues into all parties. A main problem is that Germany doesn't know how many Kurds are in Germany. And why? Because we are classified as Turkish, Iranian, Iraqi, and Syrian, but this weakens us because we have a strong base. There's an opportunity for our voice to be heard. If Germany knew how many votes we have, then we could raise our voice even louder. That's why it's important for me that we can change laws so Kurds are recognized as Kurds, and it no longer matters whether they came from Turkey, Iran, Iraq, or Syria. We are Kurds of Kurdistan. Do you have a plan for this? Can you say how you'll implement it? Absolutely, this is one of my projects. For example, one can ask about their mother tongue. If the mother tongue is Kurdish, you're recognized as Kurdish, regardless of where you came from. This could be a way. I'm in dialogue with various Kurdish organizations to move forward and know how many Kurds live in Germany. Nearly one million? Those are all estimates. I predict the number is even higher. Many Kurds don't say they're Kurdish. Then you can better advocate for your rights in parliament? Yes. Let's come to Merz's cabinet's immigration policy. He insists on fundamental changes in immigration policy, despite the Berlin court's decision that rejecting immigrants at the border is illegal. What is your stance on this? Interior Minister [Alexander] Dobrindt, who was previously transport minister, had already violated European Union laws and had to pay nearly 300 million euros to a company, a toll collection company, and he's violating EU laws again. I asked him in the federal parliament before the court decision: if you violate EU laws again, will you resign? He didn't answer. It's very simple - we have a law, and if a government doesn't abide by it, how can people abide by it? On the other hand, one must also look at the fact that apart from asylum law, which was founded on the basis of the Holocaust, the killing of Romanians and Jews and World War II, when you tighten asylum law, you're being disrespectful to your own history and remembrance culture and don't understand that this is a lesson from a war that Germany started and millions of people were killed. Germany wants to stop family reunification. What changes does the new Germany want to make? [ Editor's note: The German government suspended family reunification on June 27. ] Germany wants to do many things, but what's important is what meaningful things it wants to do, because many things are meaningless, we need to know this. Providing citizenship is a main thing for people to become part of society and participate. [Suspension of] family reunification is a disaster because the person who flees from war and comes here leaves their family behind. In my opinion, their family also in danger. Doesn't tightening of this law harm Germany's economy, since Germany needs a workforce, and at the same time these measures scare away people who wouldn't come to Germany? Yes, from another perspective, that person cannot adapt. That's the goal - they want to scare those people so they don't come, and when they do come, they return quickly. Yes, I studied economics, but the issue of the workforce is not left-wing policy. If we look at it from this perspective, Germany doesn't just need a workforce, but has a shortage of skilled workforce. Germany also needs young people because the pension and health systems are built on solidarity. Now there are few people paying taxes for the pension and health systems to work. We see everything falling apart. Therefore, Germany needs immigrants. Every society is built and changes through immigration. Immigration is part of global society, and every society was built from immigration. In my opinion, it's fundamentally wrong when immigration is seen as something bad. The economy also needs it, it's very clear. That's why in my opinion this is deadly. Some time ago, a 17-year-old young man was supposed to be deported. He had just started studying to be a civil servant. Why? What should be done to satisfy Germans in a way that they do not vote for the AfD while foreigners living here do not fear any threats? People aren't worried about immigration policy. This is a topic that AfD, CDU, and now SPD create. People are generally worried because they can't pay their house rent and the health system doesn't work, because schools don't work, because of rising living costs and because wages don't increase. If people's situation is good, then they don't make other people the cause of miseries. What Germany is doing now is dividing society. This is demagogy. You have other problems, but they say we know what the problem is - the problem is foreigners. But it's not like that. Foreigners are not the problem. I wrote my diploma thesis on labor migration, particularly from Turkey, then there was the new migration from Poland and I compared them, because people said "Poles are coming and taking our jobs." They were cheap labor. I proved with my diploma thesis that migration in the long term has good benefits for the state, not only something else. As you know, a significant number from all four parts of Kurdistan come to Germany. Do you think these measures have a particularly greater impact on the cases of Kurdish immigrants? For example,if Turkey is treated as a safe country, what would be the fate of Kurds hailing from the country but living here? Definitely [it will impact Kurds], because Kurds from Iran, Iraq, Syria - let's use the right words - from the west, east, and south are deported to Turkey, and Kurds in Turkey face racism again. It doesn't matter how much the peace process is discussed, racism is very evident there. They're also deported from there because Turkey has no problem deporting those who started the "Woman, Life, Freedom" revolution in Iran back there to be killed. This is an important point. Yesterday I spoke with several faction leaders in parliament - CDU, SPD, Greens, and the Left. Some said Syrians might also be deported soon. Well, how will they deport them? Because so far there's no deportation agreement between Syria and Germany, and there's none between Iraq and Germany either. Until there's an agreement, they can be deported to Turkey. And what happens? Turkey also deports them to other countries, but that's not Germany's concern. Does this happen often? Many in Berlin. Really? Do you have statistics? I don't have statistics at hand, but the number of deportations to Turkey from Berlin is at the highest level. From Berlin? From Berlin. I don't know about Germany, but I know about Berlin. Are Kurds being deported? A large number of Kurds are included. The bad thing is that Yazidis are also included who are being deported. They're being deported to the place they were saved from genocide. Germany has also recognized the Yazidi genocide. How can you deport these people to that place when you know ISIS… This doesn't fit. Right, those who committed genocide are becoming strong again. ISIS is also active in Germany. A few days ago there was an attack in Bielefeld, that was also an ISIS terrorist attack. And you're returning Yazidis to that place despite recognizing the genocide. This is not humane. Now perhaps those people who should leave Germany might also have their right to a lawyer taken away, which means those Kurds who don't have the right to stay are also included. No one can help them. Can you help them? First of all, I raise my voice for people, for all those who see injustice, because we Kurds always fight against injustice. Then we make demands and attack the legal situation so Germany understands it can't continue this way. Most importantly, people outside should understand, because we have another election in four years, and it's important for people in Germany to change this situation. Yesterday an official told me this government's policy toward immigrants will become much harsher. Can't some decisions be prevented? SPD and CDU started their election campaign by constantly talking about immigration. The Left Party was the only party that said: You're using demagogic tactics. Immigration is not a problem in Germany. You don't want to talk about the rich getting richer, that there's no money for house rent and no money for building new apartments, and people can't find housing. I've been looking for a house for myself for ten years. Even though I'm a parliament member, I can't find a house for myself. I'm 46 years old and live with my parents. My Kurdish mother is happy about this because she can cook for me. But these are the main problems that need to be solved. If you don't solve these problems, you'll always have dissatisfaction. When there is dissatisfaction, you can say foreigners are the cause. Then what happens? Then refugee camps are burned, people are killed, immigrants are killed. Nazis want to kill us. I myself, with my parents, survived a fire attack by two Nazis. One of them was a member of the AfD district leadership in Neukolln. This situation gets worse. That's why it's important to tell people, and I see it as my duty to make public opinion understand that immigration, immigrants, foreigners, Kurds are not the cause of people's illnesses, but it's wrong policy. Well, what can the Left Party do against these decisions? The government wants to continue. The government has a majority and decides on laws. What an opposition does is identify wounds and alert public opinion, encourage people on the streets to make changes from the streets. A government announces plan "A" to the people, but then implements plan "B" and then people punish them in the next election. If we can encourage people en masse on the streets, that's good policy. If the government changes this policy, it means the Left Party is on the right path. What are your plans and projects in parliament in the future? You've been a federal parliament member for more than four weeks. What's your most important project you want to work on? I'm a member of the Interior Committee and I'm the spokesperson against fascism and racism there. One of my most important projects is that I want to make a trip to Kurdistan [Region] and get to know the systems there, help with political work and understand it. I've never been to the east [western Iraq], west [northeast Syria], and south [Kurdistan Region]. I want to talk with political officials to strengthen Kurdish unity. As I said, for me there are Kurds of Kurdistan, not from Turkey, Syria, Iran, or Iraq. You mentioned something important earlier and said we Kurds are born with politics, and the Kurdish diaspora in Germany is very large. In your opinion, do Kurds have a good lobby in Germany, and what should Kurds do now? What do you tell them? In my opinion, we have a strong lobby. What we need to do is Kurds need to grow together more and create a common social feeling. I believe this feeling exists not only here but also in the homeland, and there are many efforts there too. I'm optimistic that Kurdish unity will be created and they'll have better dialogue among themselves here too. The most important thing for me is that the young people born here preserve their [Kurdish] identity well, but at the same time be active together for our common rights. To do this, they should also participate in parties. It doesn't have to be only the Left Party. I'd also be happy if more Kurds join the Left Party and generally all parties and defend our rights. Why the Left Party? Because the Left Party is the only party that stands with people who work hard and demand change. Because we live in a system that exploits humans, animals, and nature. Also, weapons are exported to countries that start wars and kill Kurds. Weapons are continuously exported from Germany to Turkey. With these weapons Kurds are also killed and Kurdish members are removed from their positions. That exported weapon is part of a system. The Left Party is the only party that rejects this. It demands a system where the economy serves people, not people working for the economy. How do you and your party evaluate the peace process in Turkey? We support the peace process. Peace is important to me. Kurds deserve to finally have peace. But we shouldn't forget that they've been deceived many times in history, so they must do this carefully and protect themselves. Yes, with a critical eye. I'm happy if there's a peace process and we must advance that peace process, but we shouldn't trust those who have been killing and beheading us for years. Well, what's your relationship with other Kurdish parliamentarians from other parties? I do that work. I'm in contact with the Kurdish parliamentarian from the Green Party, Kassem [Taher]. I hope to also meet the SPD parliamentarian. Of course, we need to be united.
Rudaw Net
10 hours ago
- Rudaw Net
Kurdish, Iraqi forces eliminate ‘three terrorist' in Kirkuk
Also in Iraq Erbil, Baghdad edge toward oil export deal despite oil volume dispute: Sources Baghdad hotel venue for Arab Summit hit by fire Nearly 400 gazelles go missing in Diyala province reserve Iraqi Supreme Judicial Council approves top judge's retirement A+ A- ERBIL, Kurdistan Region - Kurdish and Iraqi security forces have eliminated 'three terrorists,' including a senior commander, during a joint operation in Kirkuk province, according to statements released on Sunday by the Sulaimani branch of the Kurdistan Region's Security Agency (Asayish) and Iraq's Counter-Terrorism Service (ICTS). In a statement on its official Facebook page, the Asayish announced that, in coordination with the ICTS, they 'eliminated the battalion commander of Sulaiman Beg' - an area located east of Salahaddin province and south of Kirkuk - 'along with two affiliated terrorists during a direct confrontation.' The operation was based on detailed intelligence as well as 'credible input from informants,' the Asayish added, noting that the Kurdish security forces and the ICTS were able to successfully 'locate the terrorists' hideout' and 'conduct a joint operation.' For its part, the ICTS said in a Sunday statement on X that they, in cooperation with the Kurdistan Region's Asayish, managed to successfully 'eliminate three terrorists in Kirkuk,' describing the operation as "a specialized, qualitative operation' that was 'based on accurate intelligence information." The statement further detailed that "after setting up a tight ambush following continuous surveillance, our heroes were able to kill three terrorists, two of whom held positions as sector commanders, and the third as a battalion commander in Kirkuk province." The ICTS confirmed the joint operation in a separate statement on X, describing it as a 'specialized, high-quality operation' carried out with 'accurate intelligence.' "After conducting continuous surveillance and setting a tight ambush, our forces succeeded in killing three terrorists," the ICTS said. "Two of them held positions as sector commanders, and the third was a battalion commander in Kirkuk province." Erbil and Baghdad have recently increased joint efforts to close security gaps between their territories, which have been exploited by extremist groups, including Islamic State (ISIS) militants.
