Kurdish independence? - discussion

[isim]

Nicely put. Turkish Kurds can live among and respect turkish nationalism as citizens. They are set apart and distinct, however, by virtue of ethnicity. There's no doubt there.

The doubt can be understood when it is perceived that things are not goes by virtue of ethnicity.

Turkey is secular country with muslim majority public. Some of those muslims has no relation with religion, most of them are religious but they are against sheria law, a minority of sheria lovers can not define Turkey into "religous people and non-religious people" in "Religious independence" thread about Turkey. It is true but it makes no sense in the context.

Kurdish Regional Government. It has a capital, defined borders with at least Turkey, Syria and Iran, a parliament, army and website. Most of the trappings of governance are embodied within those functions.

It has other things too- an economy, diversity and, by the way, terrorists.

Landlocked independent kurdistan can not live as a threat to surrounding countries.

[TTL]

İsim,

What I am trying to say is that, if we are to live in harmony leaders and public of Turkey should realize that Kurds (or any other minority for that matter) have their own distinct culture and language. Instead of suprassing these we should use this diversity to our advantage.

But to be able to do this, government should make minorities feel secure: a real, participating part of the bigger society. Yet in minds of many there exists a paronoid fear that allowing our minorities which is rightfully their own will somehow alienate them and fuel separatism.

As you also pointed Turkey has laws and standing security forces. Our laws quarantee both the unity of the republic and freedom of its people. The executive powers, while very keen on the first, sadly do not always pursue the latter with the same zeal.

[S2]

isim Reply

"Landlocked independent kurdistan can not live as a threat to surrounding countries."

It cuts both ways. Land-locked Kurdistan certainly cannot live either while threatened by surrounding countries with one notable exception that could guarantee its survival.

I can imagine a land-locked independant Kurdistan living in harmony with its neighbors. Not an easy path realized but a possibility, nonetheless, where that's the determination of all involved.

[isim]

Harmony and diversity are cool but blur concepts. Goal is maximaze them. I hope Turkey maximaze them and she becomes a sample country to the world. But there is no paronoid fear as you stated. Fear is real and obvious. Political solutions must stand to the reality in Turkey, not to a book or to a cafe chat. No need to be too naive.

[TTL]

But there is no paronoid fear as you stated. Fear is real and obvious. Political solutions must stand to the reality in Turkey, not to a book or to a cafe chat. No need to be too na

Can you describe me how do you think this real threat will materialize?

[isim]

with current agenda and organizations, history and other samples of the world.

[denizkuvetleri]

The doubt can be understood when it is perceived that things are not goes by virtue of ethnicity.

Turkey is secular country with muslim majority public. Some of those muslims has no relation with religion, most of them are religious but they are against sheria law, a minority of sheria lovers can not define Turkey into "religous people and non-religious people" in "Religious independence" thread about Turkey. It is true but it makes no sense in the context.

Landlocked independent kurdistan can not live as a threat to surrounding countries.

Can you please define Sharia Law.
Princeton University defines Sharia as follows: shariah: the code of law derived from the Koran and from the teachings and example of Mohammed; "sharia is only applicable to Muslims"; "under Islamic law there is no separation of church and state".

All countries have different interpretations of the Qur'an and Hadith hence, Sharia varies from country to country.

The type of sharia law applied in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Libya etc have never applied in Turkey even during the Ottoman Caliphate and will never apply. The Turks belong primarily to the Hanafi school of Islam. The Abbasid Caliphate, Ottoman Empire and the Mughal Empire were Hanafi, so the influence of the Hanafi school is still widespread in their former dominions. Today, the Hanafi school is predominant among the Sunnis of Central Asia, Afghanistan (Pre-Taliban), Pakistan (pre-1960's), Bangladesh, India, China as well as in Iraq, Mauritius, Turkey, Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia in the Balkans and the Caucasus. The Hanafi school is known for it's moderate and peaceful views which promote interfaith dialogue etc.

WITH REGARD TO AN INDEPENDENT "KURDISTAN"
In summary: The creation of an independent Kurdistan or the division of Iraq into 3 seperate Kurdish, Sunni and Shia states is a Casus Belli for Turkey.

Turkey has accused the USA in the past of "giving excessive favors to Kurdish groups in Iraq, at the risk of encouraging civil war and Kurdish secession in the future": Statement of Turkish Ambassador Osman Faruk Logoglu
See "Turkey Accuses U.S. of 'Favoritism' in Iraq", REUTERS, Published: November 4, 2003

Turkish Intelligence has also at times intervened in Northern Iraqi politics in a bid to prevent moves at the cretions of an independent "Kurdistan". Sometimes even coming head to head with the USA. An example of this is “Sulaymaniya incident” also known as the "hood incident". A high-ranking Turkish general called this event the “worst crisis of confidence” in US-Turkish relations since the creation of the NATO alliance.

Hence, the following conclusions can be drawn:

The creation of an independent "Kurdistan" would require the Turkish-American alliance to come to an end. Turkey has made clear it's red lines to Washington on numerous occassions. It would never accept the disintegration of Iraq into various ethnic or ethno-religious groups.

Without any support from the USA, an independent "Kurdistan" cannot exist.

[TTL]

İsim,

Can you please elaborate? Which current organizations do you refer? What is their agenda? Which cases from history do you think provide useful insight?

For my part, I believe while its economic and human cost for us is enormous, current conflict with PKK is in its character a guerilla war. PKK can only function within a sympathetic population base. So our response should be to destroy the support they have from our Kurdish minority. The only way to achieve this is to win hearts and minds and this cannot be done with supression. KRG is also not a grave threat, if they become independent, as our neighbours they would have responsibilites to us which includes respecting Turkey's unity. We would have many options to pressure them taking this responsibilites seriously.

[denizkuvetleri]

"Landlocked independent kurdistan can not live as a threat to surrounding countries."

It cuts both ways. Land-locked Kurdistan certainly cannot live either while threatened by surrounding countries with one notable exception that could guarantee its survival.

I can imagine a land-locked independant Kurdistan living in harmony with its neighbors. Not an easy path realized but a possibility, nonetheless, where that's the determination of all involved.

S-2 would the USA accept an independent, sovereign internationally recognised Native Indian country on it's territory?
I can't imagine this. By analogy the same applies with respect to Turkey and Iraq. Why does nobody look at this issue from this vantage point. We cannot create States for all Stateless ethnicities.

[S2]

denizkuvetleri Reply

I'll be making my reply to you in two posts. Please read carefully-

First, denizkuvetleri, you continue to avoid providing an example to support this earlier comment by you-

"...with the US talking about an independent Kurdistan on Turkish soil is not a good way of maintaining those relations..."

I've asked you twice for comments by U.S. officials supporting this contention. You've twice avoided providing such. This is the third time. Making outrageous and unsubstantiated assertions are viewed poorly anywhere, to include here.

Fair to say that you're opposed to the creation of an independant Kurdish state. I searched for your link from Reuters. It seems unavailable. In fact, most from what you draw the above seems to come from here-

The Possibilities For An Independant Kurdish State-Michael Gunter Sept. 4-5, 2004

Most of your contentions seem to draw from early sources (2003-2006) and are provided by independant analysts. You ignore more recent examples of cooperation exhibited by America and Kurdistan with Turkey in a number of key areas, to include multiple incursions carried out by Turkish forces against PKK guerrillas between 2006-2008.

Those contentions also ignore very recent events such as the June 4, 2010 meeting between President Masoud Barzani and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Ankara-

President Barzani Meets Turkey's Prime Minister And Foreign Minister In Ankara-KRG Press Release June 4, 2010

That meeting was preceded by a visit to the KRG in the fall of 2009 by Foreign Minister Davutoglu-

President Barzani, Turkey's Foreign Minister Davutoğlu hold historic meetings, announce plans to open consulate-KRG Press Release Oct. 31, 2009

That delegation from Turkey had over 130 people including 30 officials, 80 businessmen and 20 journalists. At the time, a decision was also announced to open a Turkish consulate in Irbil-

Turkey Opens Consulate In Northern Iraqi City of Arbil-Turkish Weekly Oct. 31, 2010

"Hence, the following conclusions can be drawn:

The creation of an independent "Kurdistan" would require the Turkish-American alliance to come to an end. Turkey has made clear it's red lines to Washington on numerous occassions. It would never accept the disintegration of Iraq into various ethnic or ethno-religious groups."

I don't acknowledge the existence of those "red-lines" suggested by you. Foremost, Turkey cannot, by itself, guarantee the preservation of a unified Iraqi state. Turkey must be prepared for other alternatives should events overtake its preferences.

"Without any support from the USA, an independent "Kurdistan" cannot exist."

This is probably true.

[S2]

denizkuvetleri Reply

"S-2 would the USA accept an independent, sovereign internationally recognised Native Indian country on it's territory?"

No.

"I can't imagine this."

Neither can I.

"By analogy the same applies with respect to Turkey and Iraq."

How so? Is any part of Iraq also part of Turkey?

"Why does nobody look at this issue from this vantage point."

Because it's a very weak and poorly constructed analogy?

"We cannot create States for all Stateless ethnicities."

We can if and where it's a valid alternative to chaos.

[tantalus]

S-2, I posted a serious of points and questions in post 20, partly directed to you, as you and others may have not have seen the post, I am going to post it again

Originally posted by tantalus - post 20 in thread
First, I acknowledge the strain of thought that you cant just start splitting up countries when a group wants indepedence, but when should independece be considered a legitimate request?

Second, I acknowledge the pragmatic implications and rational view that such a situation involving multiple countries and the viewpoint that such ideas as a greater kurdistan are pointless as they are clearly not pratical. I would say that how do draw such a line and abandon such an idea?, when does one abandon an idea because they feel it cannot be achieved or should one alwalys persist if the goal is morally valid despite the pragmatic reality, in the past, certain countries would never have emerged without people taking action against the odds .

third, A number of points in the thread have discussed what is best for Turkey or the US in this situation. How one prioritises is crucial, 2 people will come to a different outcome unavoidably if in the first place they prioritise differently. So, for example, if you are are turkish or american, is in what benefits your nation first and foremost - the best option or (assuming kurdish independence is a morally valid request) - does what the kurds want overwrite this, How do you prioritise?

s2

Originlly posted by S-2
That means a complete rejection of pan-kurdish sentiment beyond the present KRG borders

due to the american invasion in Iraq, kurds have gained a great deal of autonomy, maybe as you said they will receive independence, why are the iraqi kurds worthy of this, but the turkish kurds aren't? (consider stats below) Is there any reason to state that iraq is the home of the kurds over elsewhere? I am not saying that the iraqi or turkish kurds should receive indepedence, just wondering what would be the reasoning for such a statement of picking one over the other, if the view is held that kurdish indepence is valid, and that one should persist against the pragmatic reality, thus apart from the clearly obvious pragmatic reasons outlined in 2 above.

from wikipedia

Kurds comprise 20% of the population in Turkey[34], 15-20% in Iraq, perhaps 8% in Syria,[35] 7% in Iran and 1.3% in Armenia. In all of these countries except Iran, Kurds form the second largest ethnic group. Roughly 55% of the world's Kurds live in Turkey, about 18% each in Iran and Iraq, and a bit over 5% in Syria

But in particular I ask
when should independence be considered a legitimate request?
my opinion is, I dont know

I havnt seen anthing to answer these queries yet, but given how the thread is developing and your point on an independent kurdistan in Iraq only, I felt it suitable to bring it up again

Originally posted by S-2
How so? Is any part of Iraq also part of Turkey?

I guess to continue on in the direction of the thread, the main question is, is the only reason kurds should possibly receive independence in Iraq and no where else because it is the only pragmatic place and may be suitable for the USA?

it seems S-2 that you are arguing that only because the suitability of the situation that arose due to the Iraq war and following years that independence for Iraqi kurds will suit them, america and maybe all of Iraq, but what would you say to other kurds, pre Iraq war would you have said that iraqi kurds have a right to indpendence but not those across the other borders..., it seems before the US came along many Turkish Kurds have made their desires quite clear

It is difficult situation and I am know offering little in constructive thought and appear to be only attempting to find holes, but I am searching for a framework on which to view the situation...and how to view independence and the right to it throughout history and the world at present in any situation

[tantalus]

in response to the post 20 in the thread TTL did make an interesting and constructive point in reply, although I would say that the the quality that TTL referred to in leaders of pursuing acheivable goals is a fuzzy, subjective and interpretative line

Originally posted by TTL
IMO the most important characteristic that all succesfull leaders share is pragmatism. Morality of ideas is an extremely fluid concept, each and every single individual have different views of morality. Leaders should pursue goals that are solid, achievable and will profit their people and should not waste the blood and tears on distant possibilities or vague ideals.

[tantalus]

Originally posted S-2
We can if and where it's a valid alternative to chaos

a group can create chaos in search of independence, who defines chaos, both sides of any struggle in demarcation will have alot to say how one should make such an interpretation, to me this is a strange way of how to define a suitable situation for demarcation, I understand that one can apply the logic of interpretating based on the situation, but supplying independence to Iraqi kurds only based on the rationale that chaos would have resulted would send a strange message to kurds across other borders.

[S2]

tantalus Reply

If you go through my posts here and elsewhere on the subject you'll see a clear line of thought WRT full Kurdish independance. It's predicated on the dissolution of Iraq. Whether by formal partition or civil war, the Kurds of Iraq would be faced with no alternative but to create a Kurdish state.

Its success or failure would be a function of a number of variables that are rather easily guessed. The location of a Kurdish state in northern Iraq is a given insofar that ambitions for a Greater Kurdistan extending beyond those borders with Syria, Iran, and Turkey would mean the complete destruction of the Kurdish dream.

There can be no Kurdish state extending, in particular, into Turkey. It is a fait accompli that Turkish sovereignty exists over all its present lands and is fully recognized by the rest of the world.

Were civil war to erupt in Iraq, Kurdistan would have to resolve by force of arms its southern borders with whomever (I'll call them, notionally, Shiastan and Sunnistan). If successful, Kurdistan would further have to eliminate all threats to other nations as represented by pan-national Kurdish terrorists like the PKK now existing on Kurdish soil. Failure to do so by Kurdistan would likely mean an unwinnable war with, foremost, Turkey but possibly Syria and Iran also.

With firm borders in all directions, a rejection of pan-national sentiments by the Kurdish government and the removal of terror forces residing on Kurdish soil possessing such ambitions it is possible to imagine a successful Kurdish state.

Kurds of other nations would have the option, then, of either continuing their citizenship within their present countries under the rules and laws therein or emigrating to Kurdistan. Not unlike Jews worldwide. In fact, the similarity to a Jewish final redoubt is profound. Kurdistan would be such.

Kurdistan has already formally invited the U.S. to station forces on its soil. That can't happen now. It won't happen in the future either should Iraq dissolve. Not without a Kurdish renunciation of pan-nationalism, a Greater Kurdistan and the elimination of PKK terrorists on its soil.

Were all that to unfold then I could conceive U.S. forces being stationed in Kurdistan but I'd question their necessity. There'd be strategic advantages for America to such but only if they didn't conflict with our Turkish relations. Iran and Syria wouldn't matter.

Hope that helps.