Kurdish quest for an
independent homeland has taken many turns in the past century and all attempts
to achieve this goal have failed to produce any tangible results thus far.
Although new opportunities have emerged for the creation of a Kurdish nation
state many formidable challenges still remain on the horizon. Much has been said
and written on this subject and I will not attempt to repeat what has become a
common knowledge. However, I do want to digress a bit and look at the evolution
of Kurdish nationalism with particular reference to pan-Kurdish movements in the
past century and draw some comparisons with the emerging consensus for regional
autonomy that predominate the strategies of contemporary Kurdish political
movements in all parts of Kurdistan. One of the main issues that prompted me to
write this article is the fact that we have never been ahead of the game in
political bargaining, and hence our inability to secure our national interests
for well over a century. We have often asked for the wrong thing at the right
time! Moreover, we have seldom been able to act in unison as a nation and this
has cost us dearly. As history shows most of the blame should go to the Kurdish
intellectuals and scholars as well as various Kurdish political parties and
organizations. Despite great sacrifices that our people have made in their
tragic history, ineffective leadership, lack of vision and the inability of the
intellectual class to comprehend global and regional politics and their failure
to connect with the ordinary people and understand their spirit and aspirations
have led to the failure of all attempts at securing a nation state for the Kurds
thus far.
At the turn of the century
when the Ottoman Empire disintegrated following its defeat in the First World
War (WWI), Kurdish nationalism was too weak to foment a united Kurdish
liberation front to secure an independent state. Even though initially during
that same period there was substantial international support for the creation of
a Kurdish homeland which would have included large chunks of modern Kurdistan in
Turkey, Syria and Northern Iraq. These Kurdish territories were under Ottoman
rule as semiautonomous principalities. The eastern part of Kurdistan which came
under Persian domination during Safavid period in the 16th century was not
included in the proposed independent Kurdish state as stipulated in the treaty
of Sever (1920). The idea of an independent Kurdish homeland never came to
fruition and most Kurdish scholars and intellectuals are quick to blame the
external factors for its demise. However, the main reason for the failure of the
independent Kurdistan project which was stipulated in the treaty of Sever –
though never ratified, and the subsequent passage of the treaty of Lausanne
(1923) which culminated in the partitioning of Kurdistan to the current state of
affair was due to lack of national awareness and unity amongst the Kurds
themselves and the failure of the intellectual class to lead the masses.
Although Kurdish rebellions
that broke out following the creation of the Middle Eastern nation states and
modern day Turkey in the aftermath of WWI had for the most part a pan-Kurdish
agenda, they were not able to attract the support of the majority of the Kurdish
population and therefore all of these movements remained localized and were
consequently defeated by a more aggressive Turkish, Persian and Arab
nationalism. Interestingly, looking back at the immediate aftermath of the
partition of Kurdistan we can see that most Kurdish national liberation
movements including the Agri rebellion led by Ihsan Nuri Pash (1927-1930),
Sheikh Mahmoud’s rebellion (1922-1924) in Suleimaniye, and Sheikh Said’s
rebellion (1924-1927) in Diyarbakir, just to mention a few, had a pan-Kurdish
platforms. In contrast, most contemporary Kurdish movements have acquired
localized policies that seek to enhance Kurdish socio-political rights within
the borders of the established nation states. So, is this an inevitable
evolution of a more realistic approach to the Kurdish nationalism as a result of
a) blending of the Kurdish culture and interests with those of their occupying
states, b) the cultural divergence of various parts of Kurdistan as a result of
imposition of physical borders and passage of time and c) the restrictive
circumstances at the present that do not allow the creation of new nation states
in the Middle East? Of course the answers to these questions are not so simple
and there is no consensus among Kurdish political movements and Kurdish
intellectuals as to what is the right course of action in the quest to secure a
future for the Kurdish nation as a whole.
The lack of a consensus has
been a major obstacle on the way of adopting a pan-Kurdish policy and has often
contributed to hostilities among various Kurdish political movements in the
past. Moreover, it has been used as a tool by the occupying countries to deal
with Kurdish issue as their internal affair and block the internationalization
of Kurdish plight. Although there has been some cultural divergence as a result
of partition of Kurdistan in the beginning of the past century and there is also
varying degrees of blending/assimilation that can be seen today; one can
convincingly argue that Kurdish nationalism has evolved substantially since the
partition of Kurdistan and there is a genuine awareness among Kurdish population
about their Kurdish identity. A case in point is Iranian occupied part of
Kurdistan or eastern Kurdistan. This part has been isolated from the rest of
Kurdistan for well over five centuries since it came under the Persian rule in
the 16th century. And even though Kurds and Persians have close linguistics and
cultural affinities, the Kurds of eastern Kurdistan have always identified
themselves as part of the Kurdish nation and not the Iranian/Persian nation.
This can be proven by their many uprisings against the central authorities in
Iran and their long history of political struggle for self determination. The
resurgence of Kurdish nationalism in Turkey despite great obstacles that Turkish
repressive regime has imposed on it for almost a century is another example of a
unique sense of identity among Kurds.
To those who argue that it is
impossible to change the borders in today’s Middle East, I dare say that they
have either read their history book backward or been in coma for the last 20
years and not witnessed the enormous geopolitical changes that have taken place
in all continents. Indeed times have never been so ripe to carve up new states
in the Middle East. We all know that the current borders of Middle Eastern
states were drawn arbitrarily by the victorious allied powers to meet their
interests. The discovery of oil in Kurdistan by the British was a major factor
in annexation of the southern part of Kurdistan to Iraq which became a British
protectorate. Western Kurdistan was annexed to Syria –then under French
domination. In Anatolia Kemal Ataturk successfully deceived the Kurds by
recruiting their help to force the defeat of Italian and Greek forces and
forcing the signing of the treaty of Lausanne. Although he had explicit
agreement with the Kurds to set up a bi-national republic following the victory
he did not honor a single agreement he had made. In contrast, in the aftermath
of the declaration of independence he started a systematic annihilation of Kurds
by forced deportation and population transfer, prohibited the Kurdish language
and culture and brutally repressed any expression of Kurdish nationalism. In the
Arab part of the Middle East, the British set up many kingdoms and mini-states
and Sheikhdoms. Some of those puppet regimes such as the Hashemite kingdom of
Jordon and the kingdom in Saudi Arabia live to this day. Many of the chronic
conflicts and unresolved issues in the Middle East stem from the fact that
nation state structure was never carried out as a genuine project to meet the
needs of many ethno-religious communities in that region. If there was any kind
of stability in that region it was maintained by brute force and petro dollars
were used to repress any dissent. Indeed, throughout the cold war era the
Western alliance (NATO) actively supported right wing and reactionary regimes
that had appalling human right record. The communist world did the same by
supporting totalitarian regimes and political/guerrilla movements. The presence
of vast oil reserves in the region had made the Middle East the economic blood
line of the energy Hungary west and the Western Powers found it much easier to
deal with a dictator rather than a democracy. Therefore, any notion of
democratic governance would have been disadvantageous to the Western World.
However, the fall of communisms brought some unintended consequences for the
West.
Up until the fall of the
Soviet Union there were two kinds of political movements in the region, one
based on socialism/communism and the other based on Islamic ideology. The West
supported Islamic-based movements against the Communists. By doing that the
Western World managed to keep their despotic allies in power as the opposition
(i.e. Islamists and Communist) were busy fighting each other. However, fall of
Communism also meant the quick disappearance from the scene of the leftist
movements in the region and by then only Islamist were on the scene. The
Islamists quickly found their second most hated enemy – the Western World, and
they turned their guns on their previous allies. It was at that juncture that
the West came up with the idea of spreading democracy in the region to find
another natural enemy for the Islamists. Although the idea of spreading
democracy and freedom is noble, many people in the Middle East know that the
intention of the West is not to rescue the people of the region from tyranny but
rather to help themselves and their interests. The West is only talking about
democracy because they want the silent majority of the people to rise up against
fundamentalism. In this way, the people of the Middle East will fight someone
else’s war. This is why so many people do not subscribe to the new Middle East
initiative project (the brain child of George W Bush). Having said that, a new
front is opening up and the challenge for the oppressed minorities in this new
world order is to be able to utilize these opportunities to further their cause.
Under the current
circumstances the interests of the Western World and those of the Kurds run in
parallel in the first phase. This means that the Kurds can and are willing to
act as catalysts for democratic transformation of a wider Middle East. The fact
that Kurds have a significant presence in four important countries in the region
in addition to their great number is a great advantage. Additionally, Kurds have
always been inclined towards secularism and this can be seen in the diverse
array of Kurdish secular political movements in all parts of Kurdistan in the
past and the present. So, this makes Kurds and the West a natural ally. Many
Kurdish political movements are aware of these trends and shifting alliances,
and it seems that they have adopted a policy to align their interest with those
of the West. I personally do not see anything wrong in that. What amazes me the
most is the fact that the present Kurdish political movements have all
subscribed to the mantra of political autonomy within the established borders of
Middle East and none of them advocate a free and united Kurdish homeland.
Kurdish political movements have adopted a limited platform that is supported by
the West and completely disregarded the desire of their people for self
determination. Political autonomy and democracy are great but they must be only
a first step towards creating a long overdue state for all Kurds. I am not
suggesting that should declare independence tomorrow. But we must have a policy
and a road map for the future reunification of our country. If we, the Kurds, do
not have a Kurdish policy how can we expect others to have one for us? A
nation’s quest for self determination does not end with individual rights and
freedom. A relatively small nation like Kurds needs borders and a state to
survive. The Zionist movement did not fight for Jewish autonomy in Germany,
France and Spain. They fought for the creation of a Jewish state. The
Palestinians are not fighting for their language and cultural rights. They
already have Arabic as a second official language in Israel. What they fight for
is a state of their own. Americans did not fight for autonomy from the British,
they fought for independence. Then why should we be happy with limited self rule
when the rest of the world nations are entitled to self determination? Our
Western friends would tell us that our interests would be better protected by
remaining part of the established nation states. But isn’t it time for us to
tell our friends in the west that we know what is best for us and tell them to
stop telling us what is good and what is bad for us!
All this Western patronizing
and lecturing is the result of our intellectual bankruptcy and lack of
leadership and vision. The approach that the West has taken towards each part of
Kurdistan clearly shows what their intentions are. The Kurds in the oil rich
region are considered their ally. The Kurds in Iranian and Syrian occupied
Kurdistan are fighting those regimes and therefore that qualifies them as
Western allies as well based on the concept of “the enemy of my enemy is my
friend”. However, the vast majority of Kurds are under Turkish occupation and
since Turkey is a NATO member, the Kurds in that part are “the common enemy”. Is
there any end to Western hypocrisy?
Although the 21 century has
brought many opportunities for oppressed minorities world over it has also
created new and formidable challenges. Advances in communication technologies
have connected the remotest parts of the world together in a truly global
village. People’s voice can be heard and their plight can be seen on television
screens and in cyberspace like never before. However, for the Kurds this is a
mixed blessing. For centuries their isolation from the rest of the world kept
their culture and unique way of life. In this new era they can only survive as
Kurds if they have a national government that invests in their education,
culture, tradition and language. Being a 10 to 20% minority group within another
state and relying on Persian, Turks and Arabs to promote our culture and way of
life is a gamble with no payoff. We need to stand firm and united in our demand
for self determination. Unlike what our so called leaders tell us IT IS POSSIBLE
and we deserve it!
