Sympathy for a Rebel: The Kurdish Fight for Autonomy and Self Determination

2007-11-21T13:17:00.000-06:00

A group of teenagers are at a bowling alley laughing and having fun like teenagers do around the world. They’re playing in the newly constructed, and aptly named, “Bowling Center” in Erbil. In another part of this urban expanse, local and foreign businessmen are debating the best way to proceed on one of the many multi-million dollar construction projects slated to start this upcoming spring. In Erbil’s international airport, planes fly in from Vienna and other destinations, bringing in tourist and investors from across the globe. This is Erbil, this is Kurdistan, and this is Iraq. In response to the speculative questions that must be going through your head right now, no, this is not pre-war Iraq, nor is it a fantasy of Iraq’s future. This is Northern Iraq right this moment, under the jurisdiction of the Kurdish Regional Government.

Even though this is a major accomplishment in a country otherwise torn apart by radical insurgents and foreign militaries, Kurdish aspirations run much higher. What Kurds want, and what they hope to prove to the world they deserve, is the right to self determination not only in Iraq but in Iran, Turkey and Syria as well.

To truly understand the situation one would have to have more of a background on the regional politics and cultural history than can be provided in one short paper. But hopefully a modest and insightful description can provide you with enough evidence to support this belief.

Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire the Kurds have been struggling for either an independent state or an autonomous region within states in which they could have freedom to speak their own language and maintain their cultural heritage. Kurds are the largest ethnic group without a homeland with over thirty million people over a five-hundred thousand square kilometer area (“General Statistics”). There would have been an independent Kurdistan had it not been for the failed diplomacy of post WWI allied leadership.

This failed diplomacy can be traced to the failure of the enforcement of the Treaty of Sevres, and its replacement by the Treaty of Lausanne. The Treat of Sevres stated:

If within one year from the coming into force of the present Treaty the Kurdish peoples within the areas defined in Article 62 shall address themselves to the Council of the League of Nations in such a manner as to show that a majority of the population of these areas desires independence from Turkey, and if the Council then considers that these peoples are capable of such independence and recommends that it should be granted to them, Turkey hereby agrees to execute such a recommendation, and to renounce all rights and title over these areas. Article 64, Treaty of Serves (Carnegie).

Unfortunately, soon after the treaty was signed by the Turks, their government was overthrown by a nationalist coup. The men who assumed power in Turkey refused to honor the agreement made by their predecessors, which gave the power of self determination to local ethnicities, and instead executed those officials who signed it referring to them as “Anglophiles” (“Death for Signers”). In the months that followed western powers and Turkey drew up an agreement about the division of former Persia that seemed to meet the needs of those signatory parties involved. The Kurds, Armenians, and other minorities had no representation and no means of giving council when it came to these decisions. The affect of such ineptitude and appeasement can be felt to this day. The Christian Armenians are all but wiped out by Turkish genocide, and the Kurds face policies of forced cultural assimilation and 2^nd class citizenry in both Turkey and Iran.

Having almost attained independence via the Treat of Sevres, it was all downhill for the Kurds in the century that followed. The ethnic majorities in Turkey, Iran, and Iraq where afraid of the rise of a Kurdish state and did everything they could to repress such a possible future. This caused the movement for an autonomous Kurdistan to go violent in the 1930’s. This violence continues on to this day, conducted by militant groups that operate on the borders of these three nations. Such militant groups are the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) who operate in Turkey and the Party for Freedom and Life in Kurdistan (PJAK) who fight against the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

The repression and genocide that the Kurds have suffered is just one reason why an autonomous Kurdish region should be established. Other reasons that would not only benefit the Kurds, but the rest of the world, is that the Kurdish movement for independence isn’t based off of Islamic radicalism (even though majority of Kurds are devout Sunnis) but because they want political representation and a life in a more secular democracy. The Kurds who already have such a government in Northern Iraq would be even a greater ally against extremism in the Middle East than any we have now if they where allowed to institute such policies in Iran and Turkey. Lastly, because it’s America’s, and every member country of the United Nations, duty to help promote self determination as it’s defined by international and human rights laws.

The most important thing on one’s mind, when discussing topics such as these, should be human rights, the prevention of genocide and preservation of cultural diversity. The Kurds have faced everything stated above as obstacles in their fight for autonomy.

When thinking of Kurdish genocide, one person comes to mind, former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. But in Iraq such persecutions run deeper and further back than Saddam and the Ba’ath party. From the formation of the state of Iraq, and until recently, the Kurds had no representation in the Arab dominated central government. As an unrepresented minority the Kurds fought for independence under Mustafa al-Barzani in the 1960’s and 70’s (Marquardt). Iraq’s government crushed the Kurdish rebellion and executed their leaders. From that point on the Kurds were subject to harassment and mass murder by their Arab neighbors. The most glaring example of this would be the wholesale slaughter of entire villages after the Iran-Iraq war. The Kurds supported the Iranians during the conflict in hopes of being able to create an independent Kurdistan free from Saddam’s repressive regime. When a ceasefire was called between Iran and Iraq, the Kurds were left out to dry. Under the Anfal policy (spoils of war) the Kurds where treated as an enemy nation. Whole villages where wiped out by nerve gas, and those survived where removed from their homes to disappear somewhere in the south. It wasn’t until the American invasion of 2003 that we found out what happened to these people. We learned of their fate during the discovery of hundreds of mass graves. While most of the world was ignorant of all the details during this time period, they knew enough to comment on it during the United Nations 75th plenary meeting of the General Assembly. According to this meeting the United Nations was “deeply concerned by the fact that chemical weapons have been used on the civilian Kurdish population…. and …..forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of Kurds and the destruction of Kurdish towns and villages” (UNGA, “Situation of Human Rights in Iraq”). Because of this concern the United Nations and the United States set up a “No Fly Zone” in Northern Iraq. It is thanks to this “No Fly Zone” that there are still Kurds living in Iraq to this day.

Iraq isn’t the only place the Kurds have had it tough. In Turkey a policy of prejudice and forces cultural assimilation has marked their history with the Kurds from the beginning. At the start it was Turkey who refused to accept the Treaty of Sevres which would have allowed for an independent Kurdistan. Kurds are the largest minority in Turkey, so this would have meant a considerable land loss, and Turkey’s refusal of this is understandable. But what is not understandable is, when the Kurds fought back against this decision, the Turks reportedly used aerial bombings and poison gas to crush to Kurds (Marquardt). Fearing a future attempt at secession by the Kurds, the Turkish Nationalist government set policies discriminating against Kurds and their culture. Men like Ismet Inounu and Mustafa Kemal, the negotiators of the Lausanne Treaty, were at the forefront of these new laws. Ismet Inounu publicly stated to the world and his fellow Turks: "We are frankly nationalist....and Nationalism is our only factor of cohesion. Before the Turkish majority other elements have no kind of influence. At any price, we must turkify the inhabitants of our land, and we will annihilate those who oppose Turks or 'le turquisme.'" This was the beginning of the long and historic strife between the Kurds and the Turkish state. Kurdish political parties, language, even the terms “Kurd” or “Kurdistan” where abolished and deemed illegal. From that point on the Kurds where officially referred to as “Mountain Turks”. Any deviation from the government approved terminology and history could and would land you in jail.

This is all a matter of public history, but what is not found in books is how deep this discrimination against the Kurds runs in the common Turkish populace. While interviewing my friend Rich Davis about his time spent training with the Turkish military in 2004, he related to me a conversation he had with a Turkish military officer. During the conversation the officer jokingly asked him to leave the US Army and join the Turkish one. He justified it as being a good idea because “We can go meet beautiful Turkish women, we can go hunting and fishing…. we can even go hunt people!”, and by “People” he meant the Kurds. According to Davis the Turkish officer related this to him with an unflinching smile. Imagine if an American military officer said the same thing about an American minority group? It’s a chilling thought.

The last country to have a history of repressing its large Kurdish minority is Iran. This has been documented by the United Nations for years now. In 1990 The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights relayed to Iran the need to improve its treatment of the Kurds and other ethnic and religious minority groups. The latest report from the committee in March of 2007 sadly stated that Iran had made no move to meet the required improvements in human rights (UNGA, “Situation of Human Rights in the Islamic”). The improvements mandated by the UN were very simple and would constitute what any human being is entitled to by any government. Such necessities as adequate education, religious freedom, the right to work, to travel, and ownership of property, all these and more are still being denied to the Kurds and other minorities by Tehran (UN “Conclusions”). For Iran repression of minorities is a state policy. In away it eerily mimics the ideology of the 1930’s Turkish nationalist. The only difference is that Ankara has toned down its rhetoric, as where Tehran has not.

It is self evident that the Kurds have faced, and still face multiple types of repression and discrimination in the countries regional Kurdistan has been chopped up into. Any sociologist, political analyst, etc… will tell you this is something that cannot be left as is. Even the most common of man can understand that such historical and current wrongdoing against one ethnic group by so many is a tragedy not to be ignored.

If the tragedy genocide befalling a foreign ethnicity is not enough to persuade a person to concede that they have the right to autonomy, then there are even more things to consider. A larger more powerful autonomous Kurdistan would be the best ally the West has had in the Middle East since… well, ever. The current allies of America in the Middle East are either torn by internal strife caused by religious zealots (Pakistan for example), or are condemned by every other country in the region (Israel). The Kurds having regional autonomy in Iran would provide a power base of secularism in a part of the world where religious extremism is a state funded institution.

I concede to the fact that the creation of a more separated autonomous Kurdistan in Turkey would provide more of a difficulty. Turkey is already a rather secular nation, and an ally of the United States. But an obvious first step would be to include the Kurds more in the daily workings of the government and society. Self determination isn’t always meant to be removal of oneself from the existing government, but also as a means of inclusion. This was eloquently interpreted by Liechtenstein’s representative Pio Schurti in the United Nations General Assembly.

Schurti stated that self determination was sometimes treated as the “Ugly Duckling” in the pool of human rights. This was because of the right of self-determination was being equated with attaining independence, and that this was a false assumption. Self determination is more so an “ongoing process through which peoples and communities freely determined their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

He also stated. “Many conflicts occurred because people seeking ways of asserting their distinctive
identities found they had no accepted means by which they could express their own distinctiveness…. And the right to self determination when viewed narrowly as the right to secede, that right was more likely to create problems than to offer solutions. Viewed more broadly as entailing various forms of self-
administration and self-governance, it could offer new perspectives on peaceful coexistence falling short of secession and separate statehood” (UNGA, “Viewed”).

By inclusion of this into our understanding of self determination it’s easy to see how Turkey could advocate a movement towards Kurdish self determination while keeping the territorial integrity of the state.

Iraqi Kurdistan is a good working example of how a Kurdish autonomous region is not only beneficial, but crucial to allied western powers. Before the initial declaration of the ground war in Iraq the Peshmerga (Kurdish fighters) were already working with the 10^th Special forces to defeat Ansar Al-Islam, an Al-Qaeda like group in Northern Iraq. This operation was code named “Viking Hammer” and represented the common goals of America and the Kurdish people (Lortz 66). The Americans and Kurds both share distaste for religious extremism and tyranny. Their distaste for tyranny can easily be seen in their historical roots. It’s this distaste that also led the Kurds to help American special forces to dislodge and defeat Saddam’s Iraqi Army in Northern Iraq. Over thirteen entire divisions where defeated by the combined US-Peshmerga effort during the Iraq war (Lortz 68).

The Kurds are not only providing military support overseas in Iraq, but also here in the United States as well. Many Kurdish-Americans, of whom some may be former Peshmerga, help soldiers in pre-deployment train for cultural realities in Iraq (Lortz 70). It is an undeniable fact that our continued military presence in Iraq is heavily dependant on Kurdish assistance, but this does not even come close to the importance Kurdish political influence and popular support plays in American Middle East policy.

The least one can mention is Jalal Talabani, the Iraqi president. Talabani happens to be prominent Kurd, and the former leader of the PUK. As Iraqi’s democratically elected president, Talabani is at the forefront of creating a new democracy. To say the least, Talabani is America’s last hope in the fight for a stable Iraq. In his policies, especially the newly proposed revenue sharing program, Talabani shows that he’s not just interested in benefiting his home region of Kurdistan, but in the creation of a stable federal state. The lack of major sectarian politics by Kurds elected to the new Iraq government is a major statement; it states that the Kurds are not just interested in their own goals, but they believe that helping America achieve a stable Iraq is the best policy for all involved.

Not only are the Kurds in the central government helping American policy in Iraq, but the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) is doing their best to help reconstruct their country. Despite an overwhelming majority of 97.5% voting to have and independent Kurdistan in a referendum put forth during the Iraqi Elections, the Kurdish regional government opted to stay the course as part of a federal Iraqi state. They realized that this was the most realistic way to maintain stability while still practicing self determination (Council on Frn. Aff.). Such political and social maturity can hardly be found elsewhere in the region.

But the real success in Iraqi Kurdistan can be measured in lives. Since March 2003, to the writing of this paper, there hasn’t been a single coalition death or kidnapping in Iraqi Kurdistan (Kurdistan Development Corp.). As a matter of fact, regional Kurdistan is the only place in Iraq deemed secure by the US military since the invasion (Hoffman). This is a shining example of the regional stability the Kurds can offer.

The last thing one should consider in a people’s right to self determination and autonomy is international law. This subject is a matter of hot debate in the international community relating to such topics as Angola and West Sahara. The viewpoint that is most commonly expressed and is widely accepted in the international community is resolutions handled within a state to allow for more autonomous control of a region by an ethnic group. Counter to this, most of the claims for self-determination have been attempts at secession from an existing state. This is usually frowned upon by the international community who deem international borders as inviolable (Brahm).

As one can see, by example of Iraqi Kurdistan, the Kurds are quite capable in execution of their self determination without secession. As much as many Kurds dream about and independent Kurdish state, there’s a general understanding that there’s a difference between a dream and reality. Countries such as Turkey need to see this as an opportunity to make up for past transgressions, while at the same time reducing violence on their borders. In recent comments, the PKK have offered to cease hostilities if Turkey is willing to handle things on a political level (Council on Frn. Aff).

Admittedly the legal processes that must entail the pursuit of independent autonomous regions are mind-boggling, and more than likely require a degree in international law to fully comprehend. I’m just a layman trying to understand everything in layman’s terms. One thing people for an independent Kurdistan and those adamantly against one have in common is the understanding that change does not come overnight.

In conclusion it’s an undeniable fact that promotion of Kurdish regional self determination within their respective states is something the international community should address. By ensuring this right of self determination we would be preventing further strife, repression and genocide against the Kurdish people. It is not only the right thing to do; it’s the required thing to do in accordance with UN mandate. Failure to help the Kurds would possibly cost the west a valuable ally in the Middle East, and in the fight against religious extremism.

Think back to the story at the beginning of this paper, how prosperous and peaceful Iraqi Regional Kurdistan is compared to the rest of the country. This peace is fragile; the inability to handle issues relating to the Kurdish fight for self determination could result in a multitude of possibilities. Turkey or Iran fearing an independent Kurdish nation could quite possibly wipe out every living soul in Iraqi Kurdistan. How many more lives have to be sacrificed to resolve this issue? Here’s a list of how many have died so far, tell me if you think it’s enough:

1937-1938 Dersim in Turkey: “Thousands Kurds, including women and children, were slain; others, mostly children, were thrown into the Euphrates” (Andreopoulos 144)

1988 Halabcha Genocide: 5,000 dead, 7000 injured. (Osman)

1998 Anfal Genocide: Estimated one hundred thousand people were killed (Tajalle)

This is only a selected list.

my introduction to Blogspot.

2007-11-04T17:43:00.001-06:00

So this is my first post on this place, and I'm going to make it into more of an introductory post than anything else.

The first thing I would like to mention about is that I have blogs in various other places, Like LiveJournal (http://kville79.livejournal.com/) , and Myspace. (www.myspace.com/kville79/). I still post on myspace, but I really wouldn't put much effort into reading those rants. My myspace is more a personal going off the deep end nonsensical blathering outlet for me.

I intend to make this journal more so about my views on politics, ethics, and morality. I'm following suite with my fellow moderate Netizens to type freely and boldly about what I believe. I am computer geek, here me roar!

01110010 01100001 01110111 01110010 00100001 !!!!!

One Nation Under the Blue Sky

Sympathy for a Rebel: The Kurdish Fight for Autonomy and Self Determination

my introduction to Blogspot.