Turkey has fears about the dissolution of territorial integrity in the south because of the feasibility of the establishment of a Kurdish state in that area. As a consequence of this, the Kemalist ideology asserts that Kurdish ethno-nationalism is a menace to its “unity” and “ideology.” Because of this ideology, the Kemalist establishment turned “reactionary” and “dogmatic” in time. This ideology does not work wholly any more. Consequently, it can be said that the Kurdish issue in Turkey should be solved by the general democratization of Kemalism in Turkey. Kemalist ideology is an over power in Turkey. Every policy in Turkey is shaped by the notion that diverse groups threaten the territory and nation, and thus endanger the existence of the Turkish State and Republic. Not only is Kemalism the source of clashes in Turkish society, but also it causes economic inequality. In addition to this, “The uneven economic development” begets the “politicization” and “radicalization” of the Kurdish ethno-nationalism (Yavuz, 1998).

Turkey’s policy in regard to the Kurdish issue is grounded in these strategies, which are the eradication of the PKK from Iraq, the avoidance of an independent Kurdish state and the construction of territorial, not ethnic, federalism, the protection of individual, not tribal, rights and freedoms, and the protection of the Turkoman minority in Iraq (Yavuz, 2004).

Based on the information above, it can be said that Kurds may set up an independent Kurdish state or a multinational federation, but it would be tremendously complicated and costly. The controversies over the feasibility of an independent Kurdish state have been perpetuated. We can legitimately ask why a Kurdish state in Northern Iraq cannot be established. (Ozcan, 1999)  It will be argued that such a hypothetical situation faces and brings some difficulties.

First of all, Kurdish leaders in Iraq, Jalal al-Talabani and Masoud Barzani, the leaders of the two main parties, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and the Kurdistan Democratic party, orchestrating the Kurdish population there, having not only political power, but also military power, composed of Peshmerga, the backbone of the Kurdish military forces, prefer the divided local governments instead of an independent state (Prince, 1993). The main issue of the Kurdish groups is to prolong the status quo rather than to launch an independent state. The second difficulty pertaining to the establishment of a Kurdish state will originate from disagreement over its borders. Especially Kirkuk, considered “the Jerusalem of Kurdistan,” is very important because it sits on rich oil and water resources (Talabany, 2007). Also, these regions consist of a mixture of ethnic communities. There will be struggle for these regions among Arabs, Kurds and even the Turks who will intervene on behalf of Turkomen. On the other hand, the Shiite groups which dominate Iraqi politics currently are willing to become the landlords of Iraq (Gunter, M.M., & Yavuz, M.H., 2005). The third difficulty in regard to an independent Kurdish state will emanate from security problems in neighboring countries. In this case, this situation will nurture terrorism in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey, including more than 20 million Kurdish People. (Ozcan, 1999) At this junction, Turkey is still enduring the terrorist activities of PKK. It is almost certain that a possible independent Kurdish state will foster terrorism in this landlocked geography. The fourth reason is that an independent Kurdish state will confront the severe problem of its “landlocked geography.” It has to depend on these countries to stand in the contemporary world. On the other hand, the United States cannot protect it for a long time if Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Turkey, which have already made their position against it clear, do not support an independent Kurdish state. The fifth difficulty is related to political costs. To change the political boundaries in the Middle East will inevitably lead to ethnic conflicts as the Lebanese experience has demonstrated. (Ozcan, 1999)

There is a de facto state in Northern Iraq, Kurdistan, but they desire to acquire a de jure status. As a consequence of this, the most important aspiration of Kurds is self-determination, a principle maintaining that a nation is entitled to a sovereign territorial state. (Gunter, M.M., & Yavuz, M.H., 2005) Kurdish leaders and intellectuals desire an Independent Kurdish state to be established in Northern Iraq. Some Kurdish nationalist intellectuals and American bureaucrats assert that Kurds share the same language, ethnicity, and political goal of independence to reinforce Kurdish nationhood against Turks, Arabs, and Persians (Yavuz , 2004). Consequently, a Kurdish perspective asserts that an independent Kurdish state or multinational federation, an ethnic federation, should be launched, for Kurdish people need independence as other peoples around the world.

On the other hand, one can also argue that Kurds are not a homogeneous group of people; in fact, they are divided linguistically into the “Kirmanci,” “Zaza,” and “Sorani” dialects; religiously into “Sunni,” “Shia,” “Alevi,” and “Yezidi” belief groups; politically into “Iran,” “Iraq,” “Syria,” and “Turkey.” And also, major class differences exist. Social structure in this region consists of tribal networks creating local differences and alliances. It should be noted that this social structure, along with the stance of bordering countries, does not support an independent Kurdish state in Iraq. (Yavuz, 2004) It is an ultimate aim that Kurdish statehood or ethnic federation in Iraq needs to be prevented; moreover, the “territorial integrity” and “political unity” of Iraq, grounded in an Iraqi federation, need to be preserved if the ultimate aim is a free and democratic Iraq. (Yavuz, 2004)

It is absolutely not true. Although the most powerful group in Iraq is a Shiite Group, the prime minister of Iraq is Jalal al-Talabani, a Kurd; moreover, the foreign minister of Iraq is Hoshyar Zebari, another Kurd, so it can be said that Kurds expanded more opportunities after Saddam.

Kurdish people in Iraq underwent a blatant segregation, a brutal ethnic cleansing and mass murder and were suppressed in their own land under Saddam’s (Baath party) regime, claiming Arab socialism and nationalism. Moreover, almost 800 Kurdish villages were fired, and almost 40,000 people in these villages were killed, and almost 2 million Kurds were driven by Saddam to Iran, Syria, and Turkey after the Gulf War (Prince, 1993). Actually, a famous Kurdish proverb summarizes the situation, “the Kurds have no friends but the mountains.” Kurds have not been a majority group in any country so far. In short, Kurds were “pariah” minority under Saddam’s regime (Rubin, 2003).

Until recently, almost 30,000 people have been slain in Turkey, especially in the southern region of Turkey by a separatist terrorist group, PKK, brutally killing innocent people to cause chaos. Incidentally, some Western countries consider PKK terrorists as freedom fighters. Unfortunately, this perception is a double standard of Western notion. Turkey has fears the separation of territorial integrity in the south because of the feasibility of the establishment of a Kurdish state in that area. Turkey has said that it would be a “casus belli” if the Kurds in Iraq gain their independence. As a consequence of this, nowadays, Turkey, consisting of almost 10-15 million Kurdish, might intervene in Northern Iraq, Kurdistan, “the land of Kurds”, due to the fact that Kurdistan is nurturing Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK) terrorism in Turkey. On the one hand, Masoud Barzani is encouraging the PKK uprising to provoke the Kurdish issue in Turkey; furthermore, PKK militants have received training in Northern Iraq and have been helped to receive armaments. The Turkish military has urged the government to allow an attack into Northern Iraq. The Kurdish question in the Middle East, which involves “the largest nation without its own independent state,” with a population reaching approximately 25 million people in the world, will be urgent due to oil and water resources (Gunter, 2004).

Today’s word:

Stop by:

to make a brief visit on one’s way elsewhere: I’ll stop by on my way home.