LeoVlaming
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Messages
- 1,279
- Reaction score
- 357
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
As a principle yes, but in scope of real politics.. hell no.
The problem is not Kurdish independence but the fact that certain kurdish fractions (who are part of the government) want a "Greater Kurdistan" and that includes areas in Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria, and that is dangerous as hell since it is oil rich areas and is controlled by other countries.
Plus there is the small ignored fact, that "Kurdistan" has never really existed as an independent nation before so the argument for an independence is a bit...
Plus there is the small ignored fact, that "Kurdistan" has never really existed as an independent nation before so the argument for an independence is a bit...
How would we "recognize" that independence?
Has anyone seen a map of the region these days showing who is in effective control over what area? (It is not pretty.)
Actually, the Kurdish regional government has been pretty much in control of most of Kurdish Iraq for two decades and they've proven far more stable than the rest of the country.
What I mean by "recognizing independence" is issues a declaration that should the Kurds opt to establish their own sovereign state, it would be recognized. So far the West has tried to restrain the drive for independence.
That is my point, for two decades they have been in regional control over themselves even though it does not look like that on a nation map. As an example, the present government of Iraq has no more interest in Kurdish independence than Saddam did. And no matter what we do, we would need at least some level of understanding with the government we 'de facto' installed in Iraq to go along with that part. I do not see it happening.
The "nation map" tells you that there is one government in control of all of Iraq. So much for the reliability of that "nation map".
Fact of the matter is that for the past 20 years the Kurds in northern Iraq have proved themselves reliable alluies and capable of self-government. More than can be said for the successive governments in Baghdad.
We are saying something similar, but for different reasons. In a way you have helped me prove my case.
I used Iraq as an example, but for the Kurds to obtain real independence it would take Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Iran and arguably a very small part of Armenia (which is already small.) I am asking you to consider this as the regional political spectrum of all these nations is far more tricky than just dealing with Iraq. The Kurds have not obtained a unified degree of self-governance in all of those nations.
Economically the Kurds have plenty going for them, and could do well assuming cooperation with those very same nations they would have to be independent of. The real reason is while the Kurdish region is rather large and in oil rich territory not a bit of it touches an outlet (like the Persian Gulf, or the Mediterranean, or the Black Sea.)
It would be tough for the Kurds to obtain real independence *without* outsiders making it happen by force. And historically, we know that that leads to.
Have they declared independence?
There is no need to "take" anything from Armenia, which is far to the North.
Also, I am proposing using the existing Kurdish autonomous region as a starting base precisely because it is relatively well-established.
As for the idea that countries can't exist without an outlet to the sea, take a look at the map.
You continually miss the point, they would need the cooperation of the very nations they want independence from. I do not see that happening without outside force. Your proposal is then unrealistic given the current political climate in the region.
Virtually all of the countries that became independent in the past 60 years never existed before.
And why should Kurds in Turkey, Syria and Iran not have the right to self-determination?
Thats always been our dilemma. We supported the Kurds in Iraq, flying cover, providing food and medical supplies as well as force against the Iraqis. But...on the Turkish border Kurds are branded terrorists and we flew CAS missions while the Turkish F4s attacked them. Carve out a free Kurdistan in Northern Iraq and how long before that is used to expand to what they see as rightfully theirs in Turkey...and there goes our 'allies' there...
Its delicate.
At the end of the day...they all kind of need to settle their own boundary disputes.
But where does it stop? What if the Creek Indians in the US wanted independence? Would you support that considering that would mean handing over most of the South to the new Creek nation?
In view of the developments of the last couple of decades, should the US and other Western countries recognize the right of the Kurds to form an independent state, starting from the current Kurdish autonomous region in Iraq but eventually also encompassing the Kurdish areas of Syria, Turkey and Iran (if the Kurds in those areas choose to join such a state)?
It would be wrong for the US, in contravention of NATO principles and practice, to recognize a sovereign Kurdish state that takes part of its existence from NATO member Turkey. It would be the equivalent of the US to recognize Quebec as a sovereign state against the wishes of the Canadian government.
Rather than get more entrenched in other countries' nonsense, better for the US to dial back its interference.
Virtually all of the countries that became independent in the past 60 years never existed before.
And why should Kurds in Turkey, Syria and Iran not have the right to self-determination?
First of all, as I said before, I propose to start from the existing Kurdish autonomous region in Iraq. Second, Turkey has no qualms about militarily threatening other NATO member-states or invading other countries.
Remember, in the fight against jihadi terrorism, Turkey is fundamentally not on our side.
If there's ever a Kurdistan, it will be Israel 2.0.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?