Feb 6, 2002
By: Sami Osman

The issue of the Kurdish state (Kurdistan) has been on the top of the agenda of almost all the Kurdish political parties, regardless to their political ideologies, and the wish of the majority of the Kurdish people. However, the prolonged struggle and the absence of any real hope to achieve such goal have raised the question of why the Kurdish people have not been able to establish their own state? And the answer for this straightforward question requires wide exploration to pinpoint all major factors that contributed to the continuation of their struggle. 

The struggle for the establishment of Kurdistan (Kurdish state) has been continuing along the 20th century which makes it the longest of its kind. Nevertheless, there has never been a Kurdish state that recognized by the international community as part of the regional as well as the international political structure. Except for a temporary experience in 1946 in Iran that short lived due to lack of sufficient support, which eventually ended and never to be repeated again.  There are different factors at different levels that can be considered to be behind the failure to establish Kurdistan.

At the local level,

 I mean the Kurdish people and their “political parties”, they have significantly contributed to the continuation of their dilemma. The domination of the political atmosphere by several well-established political parties has delayed the transition process to statehood. The conservative nature and the political ideologies adopted by each political party lacks transparency. Furthermore, the lack of solid unifying political ideologies can be considered as major factors for their quandary. Close examination of the political agenda of each party reveals great similarities, each party has elements of oligarchies.  Each attempts to establish Kurdistan while disinclined to the presence of other political parties and ideologies. These political behaviours have become hindrance and diverted genuine effort by some section of the society and other political institutions, away from the centre of their struggle, which could have been vital for their strength to face their real enemy. In addition, these behaviours and its continuation have altered the political atmosphere where genuine efforts could flourish to unite all parties for the cause. The outcome of this situation is variety of political parties armed with variety of political ideologies. Some of them are illogical, if considering the real political atmosphere in the region. These in turn delayed and undermined the maturity of the Kurdish civil society and its capacity. 

These political parties have confined their activities within certain boundaries, which attributed by limited horizons and resources. Moreover, those with “more than enough” resources and strict ideologies have failed to gather momentum and support in both Kurdistan and abroad. Representatives of these political parties abroad, also, despite their living in democratic societies and experiencing the taste of democracy, are not willing to take constructive steps to unify the Kurdish society. Unifying the Kurdish society abroad could play a vital role in publicising their issue which is crucial to gather international support. The situation becomes more puzzling day by day as the real enemy becomes hard to pin point. Siding with “enemies” and repeating historic mistakes, such clandestine negotiations with central governments without public knowledge, are common practices to get the upper hand. Its time for the Kurdish political institutions to reconsider their traditional and detrimental practices and political behaviours and to seriously abandon the old say “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” because all the regional states are enemies of the Kurdish state. Even those countries that until now assisted the Kurdish people have had regional interest. 

At the regional level,
 
By which I mean those states that the Kurdish are part of their sovereignty.
All the regional states, with Kurdish population (regardless to their sizes), without exception, are enemies of the Kurdish state. All those regional states have significant economic and political interests that guarantee the death of any attempt towards the Kurdish state. Furthermore, each of these states considers the Kurdish population as part of their sovereignty, which makes the idea of separation illogical and violating of state law punishable by whatever means available including the death penalty.  Each one of these states Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria has adopted certain political agenda to isolate the Kurdish from each other and further segregating their cultural and historic bonds. Each state has resorted to use all primitive and modern methods to liquidate separatist movements such as generating inter-conflicts and supplying arms to those genuinely interested in these conflicts. Each mentioned states consider its Kurdish population as a big threat to its sovereignty while willing to support Kurdish political groups in their neighbouring state. These acts can be interpreted as contracting out the death and delay of the establishment of the Kurdish state and those who are willing to take part in the process are basically contractors intending to maintain their status regardless to the outcome. Each of these political agendas, of those states, is unique which consequently produced unique political dissent different from other Kurdish groups. For example Turkey total denial, until recently, of the existence of the Kurdish people along with the use of all formidable method to liquidate its separatist movements including kidnapping (by all means) of leadership, with the full knowledge and participation of some leading countries which rejects terrorism, has generated the idea that total separation from turkey and the establishment of “big Kurdistan” is the only just solution for their problem. 

Iraq’s mixed policies of severe punishment and rewarding also produced a rather unique political atmosphere which contributed to the establishment of several political parties led by inherited leadership who are willing to rise as well as sharing the table of continuos negotiations, regardless to past experience and the future outcome. Even some political parties are enthusiastic to call the main enemy to crush its opponents. This vicious cycle of political conflict has contributed to the traditional leadership to strengthen its grip on power for longer without any signs of change in the near future. 
Iran’s policies of neglecting its Kurdish population through violating its basic human rights such as education in addition to barring them from entering public services. These practices along with its foxy approach to liquidate Kurdish leadership by killing, even on the table of negotiation, have produced numerous political parties with variety of political ideologies that are willing to accept the slow process of their struggle for partial autonomy or the wish for total transformation of the state which respects Kurdish rights. The slow process is attributed by their confinement to an area dominated by warlords with strong affiliation with the Iranian regime.

In term of Syria, it seems that its firm policy of dictatorship, similar to neighbouring countries, has been more productive to suppress of any separatist movements. Except some, political parties that rose their dissent voices which eventually forced to exile escaping liquidation. Their political ideologies however are not any different from other Kurdish parties in their neighbouring states. Partial autonomy with further respect of Kurdish rights and culture are the main call. 

Despite the similarities between these Kurdish political parties and their ideologies, there are no sign of willingness to unite their forces, which is significant for any political establishment. Each attempts to protect their status for as long as it takes. 

At the international level

The level of support by the international community to the Kurdish people and their struggle for their rights has been depending on the level of political instability in the region. In other terms, the Kurdish issue never treated as a single political issue. When disagreement arises with those states, either for political or economic reasons, and then the main players in the world politics tend to use the Kurdish issue as a wild card or as a threat to intervene in state affairs. Examples are the Iraq-Iran dispute in the 1970’s. During the dispute between the two countries the Iranian regime of that time provided support to the Kurdish people to maintain their conflict with Iraqi regime. However , as the two countries reconciled their differences the outcome was a whole sale deception of the Kurdish issue.  The United States support for the Kurdish in the 1990’s was attributed by the direct threat by Iraq’s regime to American interests in the gulf region otherwise wasn’t Iraq’s Ba’ath Party the same regime that gassed its own people in 1998 while the whole world observing “this tragic events”?  Turkey’s current support for the Kurdish political faction in the north of Iraq is conditioned by liquidating political activities of the PKK, the main Kurdish political faction which revealed Turkey’s atrocities against the Kurdish in Turkey. It is obvious that moral responsibilities are just a myth or changing with history. Half a century ago Germany committed holocaust against the Jewish people. South Africa adopted racial policies and there are many many examples of such kind of acts. These memories are still fresh and remembered every year. The events of such incident were and still are condemned by the international community especially those heralding the fight against terrorism. Therefore, their intention to assist the Kurdish with their dilemma is covered under the clouds of suspicion and conspiracy. There are many examples that project themselves to support this theory such as abandoning and betraying them along the last century. 

Future prospects

With the above picture maintained, there is no hope of real or sudden change as miracles are not possible any more. However, this is not the end of the story. With the changes in international politics and the inclination towards democracy along with attempts to eradicate dictatorship, there is great chance for the Kurdish issue to be considered as part of that process and their cause recognised. This also depends on the level of change at the local, regional and international level. Locally the Kurdish political parties, even with their limited representation, have to be able to depart from their traditional approach to their issue and take step towards internationalising their cause even though this may mean loosing some of their status. In addition, they have to adopt more transparent political agenda, to encourage public participation without fear of reprisals. Regionally, all the four states have to recognise the history of existence of the Kurdish people along with other nationalities and ethnic groups. Internationally, the international community, including the main players, has to adopt constructive and transparent policies that prioritise human rights over economic interest. In the absence of any of these elements I mean at the local, regional and international level, there would be no real hope of achieving the Kurdish state. In addition, for those who would like the saga to continue, they are no longer in a position to convince the Kurdish people of unrealistic dreams with the presence of traditional practices.