After five long months of negotiations, political assassinations, bombings and bloodletting, Iraq’s first permanent elected government since the fall of Saddam Hussein was finally sworn in this month.  Whilst analysts have focused on the notable absences of a defence or interior minister and the continuing civil clashes between Sunni and Shia militias in the South and centre of Iraq, there has been little discussion of the one ethnic group so ominously associated with the horrors of the Ba’ath regime – the Kurds.  The relative stability of the Kurdish dominated northern Mosul province and the substantial presence of Kurds in government – including the President and Foreign Minister – might suggest a degree of acquiescence from these traditional separatists towards the new government.  However, as the rest of Iraq continues to tear itself apart along sectarian lines, The Kurdish Regional Government is already making a quiet bid for greater economic independence from Baghdad through foreign oil contracts, and calls for political independence are again in the air.   The possibility of a dismembered Iraq begins to seem like a plausible option both at home and abroad.  Were this to happen, Kurdish eyes would inevitably turn to their stolen dream of 1920: a greater Kurdistan encompassing territories of Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran.  Yet this goal, if realized, could have enormous regional and global repercussions and must be avoided at all costs.

Kurdish nationalists argue that historical Kurdistan covers an area of 74,000 square miles encompassing a population of 27-28 million.  Yet the largest single group, 12 million, are located not in war-torn Iraq, but in secular Turkey – a country not unfamiliar with its own ‘Kurdish problem’.  After a 15 year guerrilla campaign led by the separatist PKK, South-Eastern TurkeyDiyarbakir and Batman in March of this year have questioned how much progress has really been made.  The Turkish Kurds have every right to feel displeased.  Any journey through the region is frequently interrupted by Army checkpoints on all major roads, as a strong military presence remains visible to keep the separatists in line.  The Kurdish language is not recognized by the government and remains absent from all aspects of the media and basic education.  Flying the red white and green Kurdish flag is illegal and, until recently, any talk of secession could lead to imprisonment.  Kurds in Turkey are very much second class citizens.

However, the situation is far from black and white, and it is easy to see why the Turks wish to prevent any Kurdish secession to greater Kurdistan – and why it is not in the West’s interest to back such a creation.  Turkey is a secular Muslim country and a key ally of the EU and the US in the Middle East.  They have by far the largest armed forces in the region and are second only to Israel in their receipt of US military support.  It is no coincidence that the Bush administration is pushing for Turkish entry into the EU so strongly: a European Turkey would provide a strong role model for other Muslim and Middle Eastern states to aspire to in its attempts to promote pro-western democracy in the region.  Yet Turkey is suffering from an identity crisis.  The westward-facing Europhile secular nationalism established by Attaturk in the 1920s and 30s is coming under increasing pressure from an Islamized opposition.  Though not suggesting any form of theocracy along the lines of Iran or Hamas, the Islamist Justice and Development government, elected in 2002, is still a major departure from Turkey’s secular past.  The recent anti-government demonstrations by 20,000 pro-secular Turks in reaction to the failure of the Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan to condemn the shooting of a judge who supported a ban on headscarves in public buildings illustrates this increasing cleavage in society.  The territorial integrity of the state established by Attaturk is a vital component of this pro-Western secular identity that the secularists are trying to preserve.  With substantial irredentist claims over other parts of its territory already coming from Armenia and Syria, the prospect of allowing Kurdish secession and a possible dismemberment of the Turkish state is something that most in Ankara don’t want to have to face.

Yet the destabilization of Turkey is but one of many possible repercussions in the region of the creation of a Kurdistan.  Any secession from Turkey to join the Iraqi Kurds would inevitably increase pressure on similar populations in Syria and Iran to follow suit.  Iran, whilst more tolerant to its Kurdish population than the Turks, is equally as nationalistic – if not more so under current threats from the US – and unlikely to allow any of its territory go without a fight.  For Syria, Kurdish separatism is an even greater threat.  More similar in its ethnic make up to Iraq than Turkey or Iran, the fear for the Syrian government is that any Kurdish secession could lead to greater division amongst its own diverse population – with Sunnis, Christians, Druze, Alawis and Armenians following the Kurdish example leading to a replication of Iraqi strife in Syria.  Such arguments have been used to justify the Syria’s own repression of its Kurds in recent years.

Moreover, Kurdish secession from either Iraq, Turkey, Iran or Syria would be yet another signal from the international community that secession and dismemberment is the only way to cope with ethnic and sectarian differences.  During the Cold War there was only one successful secession – that of Bangladesh from Pakistan in 1971.  Since 1989, in contrast, over twenty new states were created with the collapse of the USSR, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and the secession of Eritrea from Ethiopia.  With Montenegro voting for independence from Serbia in May, and a similar vote expected in Kosovo next year, the trend towards smaller and smaller states based on ethnic and sectarian lines is growing.  Kurdistan would further this challenge to colonial borders – based on imperial conquest rather than ethnic or sectarian communities.  It must be remembered that, for all the wrong-doing of 19th century imperialism, almost all borders have remained respected in South America, Africa, Asia and the Middle East, with few revisionists successfully changing the status quo.  A successful KurdistanKurdistan could pose.

Of course, the international community, in promoting the unity of Middle Eastern states, should not tolerate the repression experienced by many Kurds today.  There is clearly a problem, in Turkey and Syria especially, that needs to be addressed.  For Turkey, there needs to be a moderation of Attaturk’s uncompromising nationalism.  The EU have already recognized that they can use the prospect of membership as a carrot to entice the Turks into allowing greater freedom to their Kurds.  Already the illegality of advocating Kurdish separatism has been removed, former secessionists have been released from prison and a degree of Kurdish cultural works have received government funding.  A continuity of these measures, perhaps with the goal of a regionally autonomous devolved parliament, should be included as a key criterion for EU entry.  Similarly, Syria and Iran are suffering from international exclusion at present.  Though less likely to acquiesce to Western interference in their domestic affairs, it is not inconceivable that they may be swayed by the right incentives to treat their Kurdish citizens with greater equality.  This leaves the question of Iraq.  In essence, the Kurds in Iraq are effectively independent in all but name anyway, the red, white and green flag flies over Mosul, they control their oil economy and administer their own militia.  After years of oppression, the Kurds are finally free in their own region so why risk causing greater instability by seceding?  It is paramount that no matter how hard life gets in Iraq over the next few years, all talk of dismemberment and Kurdish secession is abruptly dismissed by the international community.  For the good of the region, and that of international order, the Kurdish province of Iraq must remain a part of the Iraqi state.    had been experiencing a degree of calm following the arrest of the Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalen in 1999.  However, recent street clashes between Turkish security forces and Kurdish civilians in the cities of could reinvigorate separatist feelings elsewhere in the world and awaken a new wave of nationalism and intolerance to pluralistic co-existence.  It is such a threat to international order that Kurdistan could pose.

Of course, the international community, in promoting the unity of Middle Eastern states, should not tolerate the repression experienced by many Kurds today.  There is clearly a problem, in Turkey and Syria especially, that needs to be addressed.  For Turkey, there needs to be a moderation of Attaturk’s uncompromising nationalism.  The EU have already recognized that they can use the prospect of membership as a carrot to entice the Turks into allowing greater freedom to their Kurds.  Already the illegality of advocating Kurdish separatism has been removed, former secessionists have been released from prison and a degree of Kurdish cultural works have received government funding.  A continuity of these measures, perhaps with the goal of a regionally autonomous devolved parliament, should be included as a key criterion for EU entry.  Similarly, Syria and Iran are suffering from international exclusion at present.  Though less likely to acquiesce to Western interference in their domestic affairs, it is not inconceivable that they may be swayed by the right incentives to treat their Kurdish citizens with greater equality.  This leaves the question of Iraq.  In essence, the Kurds in Iraq are effectively independent in all but name anyway, the red, white and green flag flies over Mosul, they control their oil economy and administer their own militia.  After years of oppression, the Kurds are finally free in their own region so why risk causing greater instability by seceding?  It is paramount that no matter how hard life gets in Iraq over the next few years, all talk of dismemberment and Kurdish secession is abruptly dismissed by the international community.  For the good of the region, and that of international order, the Kurdish province of Iraq must remain a part of the Iraqi state.   

Be first to comment this article

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.

Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.6
AkoComment © Copyright 2004 by Arthur Konze - www.mamboportal.com
All right reserved

---