NationStates Jolt Archive

After reading the Free Tibet thread I wanted to make my own...

How does the NS community feel on a Kurdish independent state?

Based upon the opinions of all the Kurdish people I have met, I believe Kurdistan should be independent.

I have met a total of ONE Kurdish ppl. His name was Hassan.

lemon curd is awesome.

I do believe Kurdistan should become a reality, but only after such groups as the PKK have been completely and totally disavowed by the Kurdish population.

I do believe Kurdistan should become a reality, but only after such groups as the PKK have been completely and totally disavowed by the Kurdish population.

Voluntarily dissolved, too. No forcing the Kurds.

They do deserve an independent state, like many ethnic groups hated by everyone.

Depends, are they Iraqi nationals or Turkish nationals? The Turkish nationals I've met seem not to care, whereas the Iraqis can get quite vocal about it.

Depends, are they Iraqi nationals or Turkish nationals? The Turkish nationals I've met seem not to care, whereas the Iraqis can get quite vocal about it.

That's because they want thier Oil fields.

That's because they want thier Oil fields.No, it's more to do with Iraq being a fucking mess and Turkey, whilst by no means perfect, is fairly okay country to live in.

Depends, are they Iraqi nationals or Turkish nationals? The Turkish nationals I've met seem not to care, whereas the Iraqis can get quite vocal about it.

What about the Syrians and the Iranians?

If they desire independence, it is their right to have it. I support the PKK and all of their actions against the Turkish government.

What about the Syrians and the Iranians?I haven't met any Kurds from Syria or Iran.

What I find amusing is that Muslims supporting Palestine, which doesn't exist, being independent say Kurdistan isn't a country.

For the sake of peace, it is pragmatic for different cultures to have separate nations.

I wouldn't mind it being created, but... it's just not plausible at present.

http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/kurdistan/kurdistan.gif

I don't know enough about Kurdistani culture, history or politics to make an opinion.

I wouldn't mind it being created, but... it's just not plausible at present.

http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/kurdistan/kurdistan.gif

Stupid Allies/Europeans don't know how to divide up other people's land.

What I find amusing is that Muslims supporting Palestine, which doesn't exist, being independent say Kurdistan isn't a country.

Why? Does it not dawn on you that religion, ethnicity and nationality are different things?

Depends, are they Iraqi nationals or Turkish nationals? The Turkish nationals I've met seem not to care, whereas the Iraqis can get quite vocal about it.

probably because Turkey is one of those nationalism lands where going against Turkish identity is generally frowned upon

Stupid Allies/Europeans don't know how to divide up other people's land.

dammit rulers and world maps just go together well! :p

Free Ocalan!

Yes, it should be independent (assuming they want their own country, anyone who owns some land should be able to do so.). Unfortunately that also goes with all the other shoulds there have ever been. Frankly I think its very unrealistic, since we'd have take take large portions of land currently claimed by existing governments.

There's always a "lesser Kurdistan" solution. Right, Otto von Bismarck?

I do believe Kurdistan should become a reality, but only after such groups as the PKK have been completely and totally disavowed by the Kurdish population.

Such an arrogant patronising attitude is the very reason Islamic terror is blossoming in the United Kingdom.

I am for the establishment of Kurdistan. Firstly, it would give a precedent for secession that would help de-legitimize the state. Secondly, it would create a new haven for people to vote with their feet against the neighboring countries, thus encouraging them to liberalize or lose their tax base. However, I would want to avoid any kind of foreign involvement in Kurdistan in order to avoid a harmonization of regulation and taxation that would defeat the second portion of the benefits.

Yes!

I am for the establishment of Kurdistan. Firstly, it would give a precedent for secession that would help de-legitimize the state. Secondly, it would create a new haven for people to vote with their feet against the neighboring countries, thus encouraging them to liberalize or lose their tax base. However, I would want to avoid any kind of foreign involvement in Kurdistan in order to avoid a harmonization of regulation and taxation that would defeat the second portion of the benefits.

Venndee, what are you smoking? The chances of Kurdistan actually becoming some libertarian paradise are about the same as Saddam Hussein ruling Iraq again - zero. While in an ideal world, I would be supporting Kurd independence, I do not at the moment - why? Because of a three letter word - oil.

Kurdistan would have substantial oil reserves, courtesy of the pieces that they get from Iraq. Aside from the United States, Canada, Norway and the UK, no major oil producing nation is a democracy. We do not want another dictatorship in the Middle East, and we do not want a nation that could potentially destablise Turkey, the Middle East's only Muslim stable democracy.

Also, Venndee, there is no tax base in the Middle East - most nations there get their money from oil revenues, so people moving to a new Kurdistan is hardly likely to worry the Saudi government, for example.

Everyone should have the right to be independant.. if they want help. ...then they ask for it.. and give restrictions.. when the 'help' should end etc.

Damn I've got the mad hiccups! I hate freakin Hiccups!

I say no to Kurdistan - not with that name - it sucks.

No 'stan' does any good in my book - say no to 'stans'! As for Kurd, just no.

What I find amusing is that Muslims supporting Palestine, which doesn't exist, being independent say Kurdistan isn't a country.

oh hah hah stop the laughter, im muslim and i know a lot of people suppor a kurdistani nation probably the only stable country their would be in ythe middle east

Guess... (pointing at my sig)

Turkey, the Middle East's only Muslim stable democracy.


Meh. Turkey is fairly stable - although radical muslim parties are gaining votes.
A democracy?

I doubt that a country who:
1.Maintains an invasion force in a sovereign, foreign country (Cyprus)
2.Allows a lot of political power to the military
3.Jails MPs for speaking a "forbidden" language (Kurdish)
4.Tries journalists for publishing books about massacres (the genocide of the Armenians)
can be accounted as a full-fledged democracy.

After reading the Free Tibet thread I wanted to make my own...

How does the NS community feel on a Kurdish independent state?

I'm for it.

As a Turkish national, I'd support the creation of Kurdistan provided that:

1. No more Kurdish nationalists of secessionists in Turkey.
2. No to releasing Öcalan. (He deserves freedom no more than Bin Laden does.
3. No oppression against the Turkish minority (Yes, Turks live there too)
4. They should be powerful to defend themselves, but not an army capable of invading another country. (No point in having a Kurdistan if Iran comes and invades the bloody country.)
5. They would have to pay Turkey for the land and infrastructure.

as long as it doesnt become another Israel that the US has to send blns in aid and weapons every year to maintain.

They were promised a portion of Turkey after WWI and the UN ignored them.

The UN should force turkey to conceded some territory along with the territory within the borders of Iraq and Iran towards the creation of a Kurdish Nation.

But thing are not always done the way they should be done - maybe theyll be happy with autonomy in Iraq. The PKK and a minority of resentful Kurds are obviously not, but maybe it is enough.

They were promised a portion of Turkey after WWI and the UN ignored them.

The UN should force turkey to conceded some territory along with the territory within the borders of Iraq and Iran towards the creation of a Kurdish Nation.

But thing are not always done the way they should be done - maybe theyll be happy with autonomy in Iraq. The PKK and a minority of resentful Kurds are obviously not, but maybe it is enough.

1. There was no UN after WWI. And for the next 30 years.

2. Why would FOUR FIFTHS of Kurds who do NOT live in Iraq be happy about dissolution of Iraq and proclamation of a small piece of that country's territory as their homeland? So the Jews should have taken Madagascar instead of ISrael?

3. Before forcing Turkey, Iran... whatnot to do something, we should definitely first force France and Spain to give their territories to the Basques, establish and independent Cornish speaking nation, Western Wales (only Welsh) and Eastertn Wales (bilingual) etc.

After all, Europe is the cradle of Western values of tolerance and democracy. -- Well, OK, not the West as Western Europe, but the West as the Balkans.

1. There was no UN after WWI. And for the next 30 years.


Right. However there was the Society of Nations, quod vide.

I couldn't possibly look up "Society of nations", because the official name of that club was League of Nations, and it had none of the enforcing mechanisms that the UN have and moreover quite a few big, powerful countries were not members (or they would join, then leave etc.)

The biggest obstacle (http://www.kurdishaspect.com/doc102907DA.html)is that 55% of Kurds live in Turkey:

But first we have to get there. And that's where the problems arise. There are, quite simply, a host of strong passions on all sides of the frontier -- and I say all sides because Iran, with its own small Kurdish population, and a big stake in the future of the rest of Iraq, also has a dog in this fight. Indeed only 20 percent of all Kurds are in Kurdistan itself. Some 55 percent are actually in Turkey, another 20 percent are in Iran and smaller numbers are scattered across Asia and the Caucasus including 200,000 in Afghanistan and even 100,000 in Israel. None of this, however, should prevent an independent nation of Kurdistan.

probably because Turkey is one of those nationalism lands where going against Turkish identity is generally frowned uponNo, they just seemed to be secure in their identity and didn't feel the need for a state that related to the Kurdish nation. They seemed to have more important things on their mind than petty nationalistic desires.

I support an independent Kurdistan, provided that there is some means to ensure that the secession of Kurdish majority regions in Turkey, Irag, Iran and Syria is accomplished without ethnic cleansing campaigns. I would also prefer that Kurdistan be a democratic state, allowing all Kurdish nationalist groups to participate in free and fair elections. If the PKK wins, then so be it. So long as they abide by the rules of democracy, it will likely be no different than the Indian state of Kerala (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala), which has been governed by a series of democratically elected Marxist-Leninist governments for almost fifty years now.

As a Turkish national, I'd support the creation of Kurdistan provided that:

1. No more Kurdish nationalists of secessionists in Turkey.
2. No to releasing Öcalan. (He deserves freedom no more than Bin Laden does.
3. No oppression against the Turkish minority (Yes, Turks live there too)
4. They should be powerful to defend themselves, but not an army capable of invading another country. (No point in having a Kurdistan if Iran comes and invades the bloody country.)
5. They would have to pay Turkey for the land and infrastructure.I agree. But it's not realistic. A good chunk of the Kurdish minority (and that's a hell of a lot of people) would want/need to relocate to a area of fairly limited resources and little in the way of infrastructure. The only way they could do this, would be through corporate buy-ins. This would rape their newly established territory and pretty much eliminate any possibility for growth, which in turn would cause widespread anger against, in particular, Turkey. And thus would begin anew the cycle of terror...

If Turkey had established an autonomous province of Kurdistan or Kurdi-whatever 50 years ago, fully bilingual and economically prosperous, most nomadic Kurds from neighbouring countries would have moved across permeable borders and integrated there.

I don't know. On the one hand, I support their right to self-determination. On the other hand, I vehemently despise ethnic nationalism, so...I don't know.

Meh. Turkey is fairly stable - although radical muslim parties are gaining votes.
A democracy?

I doubt that a country who:
1.Maintains an invasion force in a sovereign, foreign country (Cyprus)
2.Allows a lot of political power to the military
3.Jails MPs for speaking a "forbidden" language (Kurdish)
4.Tries journalists for publishing books about massacres (the genocide of the Armenians)
can be accounted as a full-fledged democracy.

Alright, so maybe it is isn't a democracy like we understand it, however, it is certainly more democratic than Saudi Arabia or Iran.

No, it would be far too destabilising for the region.

No, it would be far too destabilising for the region.

Why should "stability" come at the price of oppression and autocracy?

Why should "stability" come at the price of oppression and autocracy?

because stability can prevent war, strife and thousands of unnecessary deaths. I'm not saying there should never be a Kurdistan, but now would be the worst timing.

because stability can prevent war, strife and thousands of unnecessary deaths. I'm not saying there should never be a Kurdistan, but now would be the worst timing.

The authoritarian governments of the Middle east are the biggest creators of strife and conflict. Stability cannot be imposed by the iron fist of dictatorship.

The authoritarian governments of the Middle east are the biggest creators of strife and conflict. Stability cannot be imposed by the iron fist of dictatorship.

Putin, the Chinese and Burmese gov'ts would beg to differ.

Putin, the Chinese and Burmese gov'ts would beg to differ.

Look at Chechnya, Tienanmen Square and the recent riots against the Burmese junta. That's far from stability.

Venndee, what are you smoking? The chances of Kurdistan actually becoming some libertarian paradise are about the same as Saddam Hussein ruling Iraq again - zero. While in an ideal world, I would be supporting Kurd independence, I do not at the moment - why? Because of a three letter word - oil.

Kurdistan would have substantial oil reserves, courtesy of the pieces that they get from Iraq. Aside from the United States, Canada, Norway and the UK, no major oil producing nation is a democracy. We do not want another dictatorship in the Middle East, and we do not want a nation that could potentially destablise Turkey, the Middle East's only Muslim stable democracy.

Also, Venndee, there is no tax base in the Middle East - most nations there get their money from oil revenues, so people moving to a new Kurdistan is hardly likely to worry the Saudi government, for example.

The only thing I'm "smoking" are the basic principles of economic action applied to a hypothetical situation; you might want to indulge in this habit as well.

Firstly, by necessity a new state would have to be more liberal in order to retain its population, and it would put pressure on its neighbors to be liberal as well in order to prevent the loss of their most valuable people; see brain drain, tax exiles, people crossing from East to West Berlin, etc. (This also explains the general trend towards centralization, from free cities in Germany up to the EU, NAFTA and UN. This is to prevent people from voting with their feet.)

Secondly, oil is not necessarily a determinant of one's level of liberality; you even admit this in listing the oil-producing nations that are marginally liberal. Remember, correlation is not causation. Also, the Kurds are pro-Western and would not likely follow the same path as, say, the Iranians.

Third, by taking away oil reserves from Iraq to give it to Kurdistan, you reduce the potentiality of both Iraq and Kurdistan to become threats because of their smaller streams of revenue. A nation, in order to be a warmonger, needs a steady stream of cash, and with less cash for either nation it is less likely that they will be belligerents. This, coupled with the ability for Iraqis and Kurds to vote with their feet against aliberal regimes, makes the prospect of a destabilizing Kurdistan much reduced.*

Fourth, Turkey is not an angel; it is a state like any other. It has repressed its Kurdish population for many years, but to excuse this in the face of 'democracy' is simply political opportunism just like it was to ignore the suffering of people in West Timor.

Fifth, the fact that Saudi Arabia and other nations would not care if their people left for a liberal Kurdistan would work in Kurdistan's favor, as those nations would not mind Kurdistan becoming richer from an influx of wealth until they decided they wished to be rich as well and began liberalizing. (My point was more in reference to the West punishing tax havens than regional politics in the Middle East.)

Edit: * And if you were to denationalize the oil reserves of both nations by giving out shares in it to the general populace, you would again reduce the potentiality of a dictator, since such a strong man would be without this revenue.

Sorry to burst your well thought out bubble, Vendee, but you're ignoring the political ideology and personal philosophy of the majority of the Kurdish population.

Being from an underdeveloped region, and politically, socially and economically oppressed, the dominant forms of political belief among Kurds tend to be left-wing nationalism, often of the Marxist-Leninist variety. The single largest national self-determination group among Kurds is the PKK- Kurdistan Worker's Party.

Things will not, I repeat, will not turn out the way you want them.

For what I now about the situation (not that much) I believe that they should be independent.

Sorry to burst your well thought out bubble, Vendee, but you're ignoring the political ideology and personal philosophy of the majority of the Kurdish population.

Being from an underdeveloped region, and politically, socially and economically oppressed, the dominant forms of political belief among Kurds tend to be left-wing nationalism, often of the Marxist-Leninist variety. The single largest national self-determination group among Kurds is the PKK- Kurdistan Worker's Party.

Things will not, I repeat, will not turn out the way you want them.

I understand that an eternity of repression would result in an affinity to violent ideology; after all, when one is treated not with reason but with brutality one tends to be desensitized towards inflicting brutality towards others (see copycat crimes.) This is what fuels a violent group like the PKK. But the best solution towards minimizing this kind of violent ideology is to stop the source of the aggression, and that is repression or threat of repression by Iraqis and Turks.

A political separation from both states would remove the legitimacy of either an Iraqi or Turkish state in ruling over captive Kurds, legitimacy being a necessity for sustaining tyranny. With the most immediate source of aggression and the threat of aggression being removed, there would be no need to perpetuate violent ideology what with no one to direct hatred towards. Additionally, the nature of voting with one's feet would encourage an even greater movement towards policies that recognize human rights, and with not two but three nations there would be a greater proclivity for nations to compete in reducing tyranny. I am not suggesting that there will be an overnight change, or that a Kurdistan will result in a New Kurdish Man; I am saying that, with the laws of action being what they are, there would be possibility for better outcomes than were previously available.

I understand that an eternity of repression would result in an affinity to violent ideology; after all, when one is treated not with reason but with brutality one tends to be desensitized towards inflicting brutality towards others (see copycat crimes.) This is what fuels a violent group like the PKK. But the best solution towards minimizing this kind of violent ideology is to stop the source of the aggression, and that is repression or threat of repression by Iraqis and Turks.

A political separation from both states would remove the legitimacy of either an Iraqi or Turkish state in ruling over captive Kurds, legitimacy being a necessity for sustaining tyranny. With the most immediate source of aggression and the threat of aggression being removed, there would be no need to perpetuate violent ideology what with no one to direct hatred towards. Additionally, the nature of voting with one's feet would encourage an even greater movement towards policies that recognize human rights, and with not two but three nations there would be a greater proclivity for nations to compete in reducing tyranny. I am not suggesting that there will be an overnight change, or that a Kurdistan will result in a New Kurdish Man; I am saying that, with the laws of action being what they are, there would be possibility for better outcomes than were previously available.

As I stated earlier in this thread, I don't think that a Kurdistan under the leadership of the PKK would be necessarily a bad thing provided that the PKK abided by free and fair elections. This requirement, of course, would apply equally to any movement in Kurdistan politics.

If the PKK abides by this rule (I'm not ruling it out), then the new Kurdistan would likely be very similar to the Indian state of Kerala, which has had a series of democratically elected governments for the past fifty years, and has successfully implemented a Marxist program of social development, even without large sources of wealth.

As I stated earlier in this thread, I don't think that a Kurdistan under the leadership of the PKK would be necessarily a bad thing provided that the PKK abided by free and fair elections. This requirement, of course, would apply equally to any movement in Kurdistan politics.

If the PKK abides by this rule (I'm not ruling it out), then the new Kurdistan would likely be very similar to the Indian state of Kerala, which has had a series of democratically elected governments for the past fifty years, and has successfully implemented a Marxist program of social development, even without large sources of wealth.

Under its current ideology, I would not support the PKK leading Kurdistan. Even if popular elections would place them in power, the majority should not be able to do as they wish with the rest of the nation. Appeals to nationalism are invariably dehumanizing and dangerous. However, I could not imagine the PKK maintaining its current policies in a newly-independent Kurdistan; with the pressures for liberalization I mentioned above, a desire for independence filled, and a less pressing feeling of hatred towards Turkish and Iraqi government, they would likely cease being so radical. Even if they stood in the way of this kind of progress, I feel that the PKK would be rendered impotent politically by the stronger forces of human action that would work against them.

Also, I am not so certain that Kerala is a good example of Marxist success. Kerala is (relatively) rich because of A.) remittances, and B.) a strong private-sector service industry, which allows them to thrive (relatively) even without a manufacturing base, not to mention that it has been allowing the free market a greater role in its economy.

People have a right to self determination. Ultimately we are all free to assosiate and form our own governments. Of course other governments and their said jurisdictions will wage war against those that violate their sovereignties, by illegal acts, or undesired movements.

I am fully in belief that the scope of states can overlap,and I think in equality it is the right of those who wish to bear allegiance to Kurdistan to do so. But where not against the fundamental nature of humanity, and humane interaction we must cooperate and bear respect and meaningful communication with those other states who wish to communicate with us - for the progressive benefit of humankind. While our ideals or values may differ from person to person in environment to environment, we must not loose understanding in the unity of all things, of all humans, and all parts of our realm. We owe it to one another to facilitate the best possible life for one another, and we can only hope that grace allows mutual concurrence in what ideal human values are.

So I think for Kurdistan or Turkey, or Iraq, or Iran, or any country or stated state on the planet, that we should all be able to assosiate and put forth our opinions our ideals freely where they do not infringe upon the rights of others. - determination of rights is the tricky part, as we may have different opinions on what rights people ought or ought not have.

On the other hand, Texas was an independent country, with a Spanish speaking majority prior at first, and a ruling English speaking political leadership which carved it out of Greater Mejico.

So Texas should probably get its independece first -- right after, or perhaps even before Hawai'i.

Stability cannot be imposed by the iron fist of dictatorship.

Yes, it can. Not that that's a good thing.

While I wouldn't oppose an independent Northen Iraq region becomming Kurdistan, the notion of it spreading into Syria, Turkey and Iran would be far too destableising. More to the point, the Kurds don't have as strong a claim to nationhood as many might think. One point a Kurdish friend of mine told me is that there are at least five diffrent Kurdish languages, and the Economist also reported that some of those languages have as many diffrneces between them as does English and German.

Meh. Turkey is fairly stable - although radical muslim parties are gaining votes.
A democracy?

I doubt that a country who:
1.Maintains an invasion force in a sovereign, foreign country (Cyprus)
2.Allows a lot of political power to the military



I'm not aware enough of the situation to comment on the last two points you made but on the first two, firstly a settlement is going well and in the works and has been for some time now. And secondly, the people support the millitarys power in politics because if it wasn't for them, the real radical Muslims would take over. Also the current government is hardly a radical islamic party. AK is based on Muslim ideas its true, but it hardly wants to introduce Sharia law and every time its tried it has failed.