Why don't the Kurds declare independence?

LiveIsLife

Wondering if someone more knowledgeable can fill me in a bit on this. Reading about the Yazidis fleeing ISIS it says they're fleeing into territory controlled by Kurdish security forces. They must be independent in all but name? Iraq is falling apart and Syria is in civil war. Would Turkey invade if the declared independence? Also, would they be recognised? They seem reasonably moderate by Middle East standards

wes

Well, I think Turkey would be the big blocker for independence, and Western backers of Kurdistan don't want a conflict between the 2, so they would lose support there. There is also the Iraqi government that would object and could potentially attack, and there would be border skirmishes, as who owns what in certain area's is unclear.

I do think the Kurds deserve independence, but I have no idea, what the best way for them to go about it would be.

Azwaldo55

I think they have other priorities at the moment such as halting the advance of ISIS.

The U.S. has begun directly arming the Kurds and U.S. special forces are assisting them on the ground while Obama has authorized air strikes.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/us-begins-directly-arming-kurdish-forces-in-iraq-1.1893501

sarkozy

Because secession would lead to the break-up of Iraq. The international system craves stability. It doesn't like countries coming and going too often. And so right now, all the political capital is being put into maintaining the integrity of Iraq's borders. But it's clear that especially now with Isis, Iraq's catastrophic civil war (unlocked by the US) can only lead to the country's break-up.

Tabnabs

This illustrates the problems pretty clearly, the Iraqi area is only one part of the overall scheme of things.

LiveIsLife

sarkozy wrote: »

Because secession would lead to the break-up of Iraq. The international system craves stability. It doesn't like countries coming and going too often. And so right now, all the political capital is being put into maintaining the integrity of Iraq's borders. But it's clear that especially now with Isis, Iraq's catastrophic civil war (unlocked by the US) can only lead to the country's break-up.

This is another thing I don't understand, why is it so important that countries stay together? Some of these countries were drawn up on a map in colonial Europe and only held together like strongmen. It seems a futile exercise to try and keep people together that don't want to live together, like if Yugoslavia was forced to stay together. Surely its better to let them break apart with a strong UN presence to stop genocides and prevent the worst atrocities from happening and form their own nationstates. Forcing Iraq to stay together seems like just kicking the can down the road or ensuring the people will forever have to live under dictators.

LiveIsLife

Tabnabs wrote: »

This illustrates the problems pretty clearly, the Iraqi area is only one part of the overall scheme of things.

Was reading up on it a bit after, hadn't realised such a large percentage resided in Turkey. But they'll surely never get a better chance of forming some kind of an independent state in in northern Iraq and possible NE Syria? With the direction Turkey is going its hard to know if they'll remain a firm western ally and western stance towards the Kurds there may soften. How would/does Iran react to any Kurdish moves towards independence in their territory?

RandomName2

Yeah, Turkey explicitly stated that they would invade and crush an independent Kurdistan ten years ago (very much the Turkish style of things).

They've eased up a bit now with the bellicose tones. Also, what with having seemingly backed the wrong side in the Syrian Civil War and being on the outs with both Israel and Iran (an impressive feat), its clout in the area is somewhat diminished at the moment... so, who knows?

Azwaldo55

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yeah, Turkey explicitly stated that they would invade and crush an independent Kurdistan ten years ago (very much the Turkish style of things).

They've eased up a bit now with the bellicose tones. Also, what with having seemingly backed the wrong side in the Syrian Civil War and being on the outs with both Israel and Iran (an impressive feat), its clout in the area is somewhat diminished at the moment... so, who knows?

They may never get a better chance than now.
They have US backing.
If they crush ISIS the Kurds will become heroes in the Middle East and across the world.
Iran, Syria, Turkey and Israel would all be on their side against ISIS.
A quid pro quo wouldn't be out of the question.

colossus-x

Because they don't want to be separated from the Whey?

goose2005

LiveIsLife wrote: »

This is another thing I don't understand, why is it so important that countries stay together? Some of these countries were drawn up on a map in colonial Europe and only held together like strongmen. It seems a futile exercise to try and keep people together that don't want to live together, like if Yugoslavia was forced to stay together. Surely its better to let them break apart with a strong UN presence to stop genocides and prevent the worst atrocities from happening and form their own nationstates. Forcing Iraq to stay together seems like just kicking the can down the road or ensuring the people will forever have to live under dictators.

BEcause often it's hard to draw a clear line between peoples, and many people end up on the wrong side of the border. Look up all the trouble about the post-ww2 movement of people in Eastern Europe, or the India-Pakistan split, or the Greek-Turkish populations exchanges.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Are they the largest group of people that don't have their own nation state...?

I'm going to go with yes.

sarkozy

LiveIsLife wrote: »

This is another thing I don't understand, why is it so important that countries stay together? Some of these countries were drawn up on a map in colonial Europe and only held together like strongmen. It seems a futile exercise to try and keep people together that don't want to live together, like if Yugoslavia was forced to stay together. Surely its better to let them break apart with a strong UN presence to stop genocides and prevent the worst atrocities from happening and form their own nationstates. Forcing Iraq to stay together seems like just kicking the can down the road or ensuring the people will forever have to live under dictators.

Think about it: if every self-identified group in the world claimed their right to their own state, where would it stop? There is no logic to prevent the dissolution of all states into tiny, tiny territories. Since community/national identity is as much subjective as it is political, what can possibly prevent a chain reaction? How far could the logic of self-determination possibly go before it descends into absurdity, or perpetual war?

Don't think it can't happen. The most radical experiment in this respect is in Belgium where in certain spots, the Flemish and Walloon border have been divided nearly on a street-by-street/house-by-house basis. They're not at war, but Belgium didn't have a government for a few years because both sides couldn't agree. This also isn't unusual for Europe in a historical sense because this time lapse of Europe's borders from medieval times shows there was a crazy situation in the 1500s following the 100 years war, whose rediculousness contributed to the Thirty Years War and subsequently led to the birth of the modern nation-state system with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. The modern idea of sovereignty was born.

But it also gave birth to the idea, perhaps, that borders are ultimately decided by power. In some cases, for example, in post-WWII Germany, borders are often places where armies agree to disagree. In other cases, countries can hold referendums to secede from countries, just as the Scottish are doing now, and you can see how that's being welcomed by England and Westminster (not to mention many Scottish unionists). Here, the sociologist Max Weber's dictum that political legitimacy ultimately rests on the state's monopoly of the use of force is relevant - if Scotland votes 'wrong', England has the economic and military power to make life difficult for the fledgling member of the international system. The SNP will not admit, for strategic reasons, that Scotland has another choice in its back pocket: joining the EU and the euro - in other words, greater independence through European integration.

And so, in Europe, you can see why stability of borders is so important. Too much fragmentation has been dangerous, historically. Nationalism was drummed up so much to the point of ideology that it led to two catastrophes. Europe is held together with treaties and institutions, which in all its complexity must creak to adapt to a new situation, and allowing for to rapid change could cause major problems.

Some calls for independence are just too politically explosive. We know this from the conflict in Northern Ireland with two communities (and everyone else on the sidelines) occupying two irreconcilable positions. The partition of Northern Ireland itself was brought about through the creation of armed militias and a willingness to prevent all-out war (which subequently broke out on the continent anyway).

The post-cold war era has seen a decrease in inter-state conflicts, but it has seen an increase in internicine conflicts and civil wars. The creation of new states following justified or unjustified struggles are always dangerous. Some peoples have a strong, legitimate case for independence, some do not, and those with a strong case often do not get their wishes.

The addition of South Sudan to the international community was welcomed and at first it seemed that things might work out, but now this is going south. Fake borders established by colonialists have always been in dispute, and so they should be, and often powers don't care unless natural resources are involved. And sometimes, in the case of Democratic Republic of Congo, porous borders to the point of meaninglessness can actually be a benefit when, as a government leader in Rwanda, you're raping and pillaging your way through the diamond mines across the border and can plausibly deny any involvement.

We like to think self-determination and ruling oneself is all about freedom, but it's really about power. Who has it. Who doesn't. Independence can too often create a powder-keg which results in terrible, terrible things. During the cold war, this effect was actually used as a pressure valve to ensure global geopolitical stability between the communist and capitalist worlds. Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan - all proxy wars to take the edge off.

So, it's an open question whether the Kurds in Iraq could peacefully secede. Firstly, you would have fears expressed by Turkey, Iran and Russia that it could undermine their integrity. It could lead to power conflicts within the Kurdish regions in those states. The Iraqi Kurdish region might even find itself alone and indefensible against land claims by any of the bordering countries. I suspect Turkey and Iran would prefer to avoid conflict, but they, and particularly Turkey, would seek to crush Kurdish secessionist resistance within its borders. Without a means to defend itself (unless supported by the US, Europe, etc.), the Iraqi Kurds' independence may conversely make them very vulnerable. They have oil, and countries like oil.

jmayo

sarkozy wrote: »

Because secession would lead to the break-up of Iraq. The international system craves stability. It doesn't like countries coming and going too often. And so right now, all the political capital is being put into maintaining the integrity of Iraq's borders. But it's clear that especially now with Isis, Iraq's catastrophic civil war (unlocked by the US) can only lead to the country's break-up.

The breakup of Iraq I think is inevitable.
How it is done is the big question.
Maybe it is being Irish and Republican (not rabid Republican ala SF and PIRA), but I do think peoples have a right to self determination.

Sometimes stability is best reached if states do break apart.
Otherwise then you might as well argue for empires and colonisation.

Turkey is the biggest obstacle to Kurdish state.
And Turkey is becoming more interesting as the days go by.
On the one hand you have them requesting EU membership and on the other you have Erdogan trying to co-opt power and turn himself into Putin mark II.

While he may have made moves on behalf of Kurds and help end their uprising, created better relations with Greece (probably to help EU membership), he hasn't ever acknowledged Armenian genocide and relations with Armenia is very frosty.

Turkey would not stand for a free Kurdistan that would act as beacon for Kurds in Turkey.

One of the problems with the Middle East, Africa and indeed parts of Asia is that borders were drawn on a map often based on existing colonial lines and/or geogrpahical features.
They often made no allowance for actual peoples and historical boundaries.
Add into the mix that tribal aflliation is still strong in certain regions and you have a recipe for trouble.

halkar

This won't happen. Neither Turkey nor Iran will give up inch of land for independent Kurdish nation. If they declare independence within Iraq they will be landlocked and probably be sanctioned by Iraq, Turkey and Iran.

sarkozy

I just can't see any of this ending well. This story is long from over. Different region, but there may be the real prospect now of a Maghreb Africa coalition, involving possibly Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco to pacify Libya.

By the way, I agree with the principle of self-determination, too. I also hate imperialism, empires and nationalism. Self-determination can justify the dividing of populations, the uniting of them, and the intermingling of them. There's no one-way street on this. But, the international system is not predisposed towards it.

LiveIsLife

halkar wrote: »

This won't happen. Neither Turkey nor Iran will give up inch of land for independent Kurdish nation. If they declare independence within Iraq they will be landlocked and probably be sanctioned by Iraq, Turkey and Iran.

They're not in a great position geographically, but with the US and now the EU arming them it can't be ruled out. A nationalistic people with heavy weaponry could cause big problems for anyone trying to occupy the region. Obviously Iran has its own Kurds but I don't know if their position is set dead against them as much as Turkey/Iraq, a Kurdish state would be a better and potentially friendlier neighbour compared to one formed by ISIS?