|
Kurdish National Claims Disputed and
Compared to Israel
15.11.2007
By Martin Zehr
|
|
|
|
November 15, 2007
Recently an article in Al-Ahram Weekly written by
Ayman El-Amir entitled
"Who Wants Another Israel"
presented the issue of the reconfiguration of South
West Asia. The writer presented both the historical
context and the national grievances of the Kurdish
people and than raised the matter in a geo-political
context that have always raised concerns among
governments in the region. It is worthy of a
response that recognizes the inherent dangers of
such an analysis and that advocates for defense of
the Kurdish nation and peoples.
What should be rejected is the effort to compare the
establishment of the settler-state of Israel with
the political recognition of a
historically-contiguous nation of Kurdistan. Without
getting pulled into the discussion of Israel, it is
incumbent that the political rights of Kurdish
people not be defined outside of political entities
that do not represent them. States exist to empower
people into forging a common national direction and
building a common economical structure that is
stable and empowers people in their day-to-day
lives.
The writer focuses on the particular issue of
Kurdistan independence but uses the demonstration of
the autonomy of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG)
in order to try and undermine the political entity
that has already demonstrated effectiveness in
governing. The KRG does not simply govern for Kurds,
it also governs for Assyrians, Turkomen and Arabs
within its jurisdiction. This demonstrates that the
political reconfiguration that has taken place in
northern Iraq is not simply an exercise in ethnic
cleansing or religious sectarianism.
The legitimacy of the Kurdistan Regional Government
has been established legally and its entitlements
and authority recognized within the Iraqi
Constitution. The attempt by the Turkish government
not to recognize the KRG or its elected
representatives has to do with THEIR internal
problems and not with the viablilty of the Kurdish
government. The KRG has worked within the
definitions of the constitution and exercised its
powers under its guidelines and protections. There
is no legal partitioning of Iraq and there are no
representatives of the KRG who have claimed this to
be the case.
The writer does present the role of British
colonialism in the formation of the states of Syria,
Iraq, Turkey and Iran. It is important that the
English-French definitions of nations in the region
by the Sykes-Pincot Agreement not be used to justify
an historical injustice to the Kurdish nation and
peoples indefinitely. Dinbar Zebari correctly
pointed out that while oil is currently being used
as a justification denial of international
recognition by many governments of Kurdish national
claims, such as incorporation of Kirkuk. It is
history not economics that needs to be the criterion
for nationhood. "The internal conflict over the
possession of oil rich territories has always
overshadowed the issue of Kurdish autonomy. However,
it should be noted that the Kurdish claims to the
territory predate the emergence of world economic
preoccupation and dependence on oil” Furthermore,
the Turkish rejection of the terms of the Treaty of
Sčvres of 1920 that provided for a referendum by
Kurds has never been addressed.
The writer declares somewhat casually:” The
fundamental issue in abeyance is the decades-long
aspiration for the creation of a state of
Kurdistan.” One raises one’s eyebrows when the issue
is raised in terms of being “decades-long” or when
the non-binding resolution of the Senate on
federalism within Iraq is presented as “calling for
the partition of Iraq along ethnic and religious
lines” Such descriptions on their face undermine the
discussion and present a position fraught with
inaccuracy. This is further revealed with the
assumption presented in the article that: “Israel
has a strategic interest in breaking up Iraq.” Even
if that could be demonstrated by statements from
Israeli governmental and military leaders, which it
is not, it does not present the historical existence
of Kurdish nation as a given. The writer is
attempting to present the existing political entity
of the Kurdistan Regional Government as an appendage
of Israeli foreign policy. This might be easy to
accept in certain circles of the elites and
intellectuals in the region, but it is hardly proven
in the text of this article.
The writer carries on this line of thought by
declaring: “Turkey's strong apprehension of a
stronger regional government in Iraqi Kurdistan is
understandable and justified. What is not
understandable is the Arabs' squeamish reaction to
the ongoing partitioning of Iraq, beyond rhetorical
statements about preserving the sovereignty and
territorial integrity of Iraq. Israel has been
working hard on cloning itself in Kurdistan, and the
Arabs are watching, leaving it to Turkey to protect
their interests.” Here the Turkish government’s
denial of national and political rights within
Turkey are subordinated and disregarded in an
attempt to raise the “Israel factor” as determinant
in the region. Here the writer not only promotes
Turkish military invasion and occupation of the
Kurdish Autonomous Region but he is actually
attempting to raise a rallying cry for other
governments and militaries in the region to join the
effort.
Clearly the writer is going beyond simply the
activity of the PKK in such a description and has
included any national Kurdish political entity,
whether autonomous or independent, as the problem.
He states: “Erdogan's government now regards the
PKK's activities as a national security threat as
the Kurdish Regional Government in Iraq gains more
strength and independence under the authority of the
US occupation and the new Iraqi constitution.” In
one sentence, he unites the PKK and the KRG as the
source of the Turkish Prime Minister’s concern. In
this context there are needs for action by the
United Nations that begin to address these matters
as a body. There is no safety margin here with
100,000 Turkish troops on the border. That is a
mobilization that in itself represents a direct
threat to the sovereignty of the Kurdish Autonomous
Region and presents the risk of a region-wide
conflict.
Martin Zehr is an American political writer in
the San Francisco area whose article on the Kirkuk
Referendum has been printed by the Kurdish Regional
Government.
opednews com
Top |
Kurd Net
does not take credit for and is not responsible for the content of news
information on this page
|
® 