Should the Kurds get their own state?

[Bonam]

I was just reading this article on the economist a few days ago:

http://www.economist.com/node/16646014

And it reminded me that the Kurds have not had it easy in recent decades in either Iraq or Turkey, where they have been repeatedly persecuted. Turkish control of the region is nothing more than a relic from their past as the Ottoman Empire, and Iraq's control of its Kurdish region is nothing more than an arbitrary decision by European powers in the early 20th century.

I think a sovereign and independent state of Kurdistan should be formed, consisting of parts of northern Iraq and eastern Turkey, along the lines of the map of high Kurdish population areas shown in the linked article.

Now, I'm not saying that this should happen by the West imposing such a solution (we shouldn't), I just think it would be beneficial for the region if it happened. In general, my viewpoint is that where ethnic groups form minorities that are highly localized to within a specific region in a country and want to separate, that they should be allowed to do so.

Thoughts?

[Moonlight Graham]

I think it would ease tensions obviously so i'd be in favour of it, but realistically i don't know how it can happen amicably. States aren't keen on giving up territory.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[nicky10013]

No. They shouldn't. Not only do the Kurds want their own state, they also want a share of Iraqi oil resources, which doesn't exist in the actual Kurdish regions of either Turkey, Armenia or Iraq. The partition of the Iraqi state would only lead to civil war (or greater civil war) over resources.

[Bonam]

No. They shouldn't. Not only do the Kurds want their own state, they also want a share of Iraqi oil resources, which doesn't exist in the actual Kurdish regions of either Turkey, Armenia or Iraq. The partition of the Iraqi state would only lead to civil war (or greater civil war) over resources.

So because there might be a potential dispute over which territory certain underground resources would end up in, an entire people should remain under the rule of states that have oppressed them for generations?

As for the Iraqi state, Turkish forces already regularly launch military sorties into it to target Kurdish rebels and terrorists. It is not exactly peaceful. Iraq's prospects for existence as a stable state, after US forces are gone, may well be improved if it doesn't constantly stand on the brink of tensions with Turkey over border raids targeting Kurdish insurgents.

[nicky10013]

So because there might be a potential dispute over which territory certain underground resources would end up in, an entire people should remain under the rule of states that have oppressed them for generations?

As for the Iraqi state, Turkish forces already regularly launch military sorties into it to target Kurdish rebels and terrorists. It is not exactly peaceful. Iraq's prospects for existence as a stable state, after US forces are gone, may well be improved if it doesn't constantly stand on the brink of tensions with Turkey over border raids targeting Kurdish insurgents.

To prevent further war, yes. It's a lose lose situation. Men, women and children who would be killed in ethnic cleansing shouldn't be subject to the romantic notions of sovereignty by some. In the end, the current situation now is probably the best solution. At least over time it allows for the possible development of a respectful federalism (though I doubt it). The Kurds have been subject to genocide once already. In such a short period of time I don't think it would be wise to go down that course again.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Better to work on dealing with the abuses and oppression of the Kurds than deal with the problems of another state being created.

[Bonam]

To prevent further war, yes. It's a lose lose situation. Men, women and children who would be killed in ethnic cleansing shouldn't be subject to the romantic notions of sovereignty by some. In the end, the current situation now is probably the best solution. At least over time it allows for the possible development of a respectful federalism (though I doubt it). The Kurds have been subject to genocide once already. In such a short period of time I don't think it would be wise to go down that course again.

They were subject to genocide precisely because they were stateless, under the power of a regime that had little liking for them. If they had their own state, their own military, they could defend themselves from ever facing that situation again.

[naomiglover]

Bonam: Should you really be the person who should be rallying for the rights of the Kurds to have their own state when you try to justify the actions of the country who has been denying the Palestinians from having their own fair and just state? A future state that already has its borders established under international law?

[Bonam]

Bonam: Should you really be the person who should be rallying for the rights of the Kurds to have their own state when you try to justify the actions of the country who has been denying the Palestinians from having their own fair and just state? A future state that already has its borders established under international law?

I support the existence of a Jewish state for the Jewish people, just as I support the existence of a Palestinian state for the Palestinian people, and the existence of a Kurdish state for the Kurdish people.

[ToadBrother]

I was just reading this article on the economist a few days ago:

http://www.economist.com/node/16646014

And it reminded me that the Kurds have not had it easy in recent decades in either Iraq or Turkey, where they have been repeatedly persecuted. Turkish control of the region is nothing more than a relic from their past as the Ottoman Empire, and Iraq's control of its Kurdish region is nothing more than an arbitrary decision by European powers in the early 20th century.

I think a sovereign and independent state of Kurdistan should be formed, consisting of parts of northern Iraq and eastern Turkey, along the lines of the map of high Kurdish population areas shown in the linked article.

Now, I'm not saying that this should happen by the West imposing such a solution (we shouldn't), I just think it would be beneficial for the region if it happened. In general, my viewpoint is that where ethnic groups form minorities that are highly localized to within a specific region in a country and want to separate, that they should be allowed to do so.

Thoughts?

Woodrow Wilson, is that you?

[ToadBrother]

Bonam: Should you really be the person who should be rallying for the rights of the Kurds to have their own state when you try to justify the actions of the country who has been denying the Palestinians from having their own fair and just state? A future state that already has its borders established under international law?

You mean the Arab League? After all, it's the Arab League whose incompetence in military and diplomatic matters that lead to the situation today.

[naomiglover]

I support the existence of a Jewish state for the Jewish people, just as I support the existence of a Palestinian state for the Palestinian people, and the existence of a Kurdish state for the Kurdish people.

It's like a Turkish MP saying: "I support a Kurdish state if they live in this tiny little territory that we have drawn for them. They will not have access to their airspace and will have to do their imports and exports through us and they can never have a military. Oh and we'll be controlling all the main roads."

That's not a fair comparison though, because the difference would be that the future Palestinian state already has been given an internationally recognized border.

If you don't support the formation of a Palestinian State as according to international law, then you're as fake as Bibi who also says he supports the formation of a Palestinian state.

[ToadBrother]

It's like a Turkish MP saying: "I support a Kurdish state if they live in this tiny little territory that we have drawn for them. They will not have access to their airspace and will have to do their imports and exports through us and they can never have a military. Oh and we'll be controlling all the main roads."

That's not a fair comparison though, because the difference would be that the future Palestinian state already has been given an internationally recognized border.

If you don't support the formation of a Palestinian State as according to international law, then you're as fake as Bibi who also says he supports the formation of a Palestinian state.

And when are you going to start demanding the return of the Kurils to Japan?

[dre]

So because there might be a potential dispute over which territory certain underground resources would end up in, an entire people should remain under the rule of states that have oppressed them for generations?

As for the Iraqi state, Turkish forces already regularly launch military sorties into it to target Kurdish rebels and terrorists. It is not exactly peaceful. Iraq's prospects for existence as a stable state, after US forces are gone, may well be improved if it doesn't constantly stand on the brink of tensions with Turkey over border raids targeting Kurdish insurgents.

So because there might be a potential dispute over which territory certain underground resources would end up in, an entire people should remain under the rule of states that have oppressed them for generations?

Yeah thats normally how it works. If we carved up states for every bunch of people that feels oppressed there would be about 5000 countries in the world. Turkey and Iraq should keep their borders intact and secure, and make sure that Kurds and other ethnic minorities are treated as equals... thats about it.

[dre]

And when are you going to start demanding the return of the Kurils to Japan?

What a stupid comparison...

[Bonam]

Yeah thats normally how it works. If we carved up states for every bunch of people that feels oppressed there would be about 5000 countries in the world.

And what would necessarily be so wrong about that? More local governance, less giant states that dictate from afar to various groups who they care little and know less about. And if people feel that they gain more from unity than from independence, then the states stay together, as for example in Quebec, where their own referendums showed that they wanted to remain part of Canada.

People should have a choice.

Turkey and Iraq should keep their borders intact and secure, and make sure that Kurds and other ethnic minorities are treated as equals... thats about it.

Except that Turkey and Iraq do not have a history or culture of caring about whether minorities are treated equal. Why are their borders sacred if they do not make sense, relics of long-fallen empires or of European decrees? Borders should reflect the ethnic and cultural makeup of the people that live inside them, especially if neighboring groups cannot get along while under the same state.

There is nothing inherently moral or good about governments imposing themselves upon people who do not want them, who would rather be independent and form their own state. Maintaining rulership of populations and regions who do not want to be ruled by that power is imperialism, nothing else.

[DogOnPorch]

What a stupid comparison...

Why? They lost those islands in the Pacific War...an affair they started.

[dre]

Why? They lost those islands in the Pacific War...an affair they started.

Theres so many reasons why that comparison is utterly meaningless and idiotic it would take all day to list them all.

Theres the fact that Japan signed a treaty in 1951 in which they expressly gave up all legal rights and claims to the Islands. Then of course you have the fact that Israel has signed international treaties that forbid the settling of occupied land by the occupying force, Japan had not signed those treaties.

Then of course you have the fact that the Kuril islands are adminstrated by Russia as PART OF RUSSIA. In the west bank however not only does Israel refuse to allow residents there to participate in the Israeli political process, and the Israeli state, they wont allow them to form their own state either.

That of course doesnt even address the practical differences... The fact that theres 2 million people living under a military occupation, and not only do they have no interest in being Israeli, but Israel doesnt want them as citizens anyways.

I guess if you rounded up a bunch of wheelchair bound retards, and put them in a room full of whiskey and crack cocaine for a few days, its POSSIBLE that one of them might come up with an EVEN DUMBER comparison than that one, but not likely...

Edited July 30, 2010 by dre

[DogOnPorch]

As far as I can remember, both Egypt and Jordan also gave-up further claims to Gaza and the West Bank. So when is Germany going to get Danzig back from the Poles? I say never...but, you seem to have a different spin as long as it is Israel that is involved.

Edited July 30, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[naomiglover]

Except that Turkey and Iraq do not have a history or culture of caring about whether minorities are treated equal. Why are their borders sacred if they do not make sense, relics of long-fallen empires or of European decrees? Borders should reflect the ethnic and cultural makeup of the people that live inside them, especially if neighboring groups cannot get along while under the same state.

There is nothing inherently moral or good about governments imposing themselves upon people who do not want them, who would rather be independent and form their own state. Maintaining rulership of populations and regions who do not want to be ruled by that power is imperialism, nothing else.

Why are you pretending that there isn't a very large elephant sitting in the room, on your head?

[dre]

As far as I can remember, both Egypt and Jordan also gave-up further claims to Gaza and the West Bank. So when is Germany going to get Danzig back from the Poles? I say never...but, you seem to have a different spin as long as it is Israel that is involved.

Yes, Egypt, Jordan, and Israel have no valid claim to the occupied territories. That has WHAT exactly to do with the Kuril Islands?

So when is Germany going to get Danzig back from the Poles

Another irrelevant and useless comparison.

[Bonam]

Why are you pretending that there isn't a very large elephant sitting in the room, on your head?

There really isn't. You just see an illusury one, because you are so deeply invested in your agenda.

In any case, this thread is about the Kurds, we already have a good 50 threads or so about your favourite issue, most of them courtesy of yourself. Would you kindly contain discussion on that topic to any of the threads you started, and let this one remain on topic?

Thanks.

[dre]

And what would necessarily be so wrong about that? More local governance, less giant states that dictate from afar to various groups who they care little and know less about. And if people feel that they gain more from unity than from independence, then the states stay together, as for example in Quebec, where their own referendums showed that they wanted to remain part of Canada.

People should have a choice.

Except that Turkey and Iraq do not have a history or culture of caring about whether minorities are treated equal. Why are their borders sacred if they do not make sense, relics of long-fallen empires or of European decrees? Borders should reflect the ethnic and cultural makeup of the people that live inside them, especially if neighboring groups cannot get along while under the same state.

There is nothing inherently moral or good about governments imposing themselves upon people who do not want them, who would rather be independent and form their own state. Maintaining rulership of populations and regions who do not want to be ruled by that power is imperialism, nothing else.

Except that Turkey and Iraq do not have a history or culture of caring about whether minorities are treated equal.

Then we should try to fix that... not create nation states for all the ethnic minorities in those places.

Borders should reflect the ethnic and cultural makeup of the people that live inside them

I strongly disagree.

There is nothing inherently moral or good about governments imposing themselves upon people who do not want them

Theres nothing inherently good or moral about ethnic balkanization either.

And what would necessarily be so wrong about that? More local governance, less giant states that dictate from afar to various groups who they care little and know less about.

There would be a lot more wars for one thing. Not to mention that any realistic attempt by Kurdish separatists to achieve independance would also result in a bloody war, that the kurds would lose anyways.

[DogOnPorch]

Yes, Egypt, Jordan, and Israel have no valid claim to the occupied territories. That has WHAT exactly to do with the Kuril Islands?

Israel, like it or not, has a claim via the military victory of 1967...cemented in their opinion, via their victory in the 1973 Yom Kippur war. You're free to gather an army and discuss the diplomatic situation with them by 'other means' as Clauswitz said in the day.

Another irrelevant and useless comparison.

Only because it hits the nail on the head and you don't really have anything to counter with. You could always come up with a historical situation where the loser in a war of aggression (of their starting) got to keep the land they took by force. But, heck, that might require some real obscure digging. Maybe an island in Micronesia fits the bill...lol.

[DogOnPorch]

Re: the Kurds. I agree that they should get their own territory. Then they can piss off the Turks to their heart's content.