Tweet
examiner.com
March 27 2010
Is this the right time for an independent Kurdistan?
March 26, 5:26 PMLA Middle Eastern Policy Examiner
Paul KujawskyPrevious
My colleague, Eurasian Examiner Joe Ribakoff, has written a
provocative piece titled, "Now is the time for a Kurdish state."
Ribakoff argues that the stateless, persecuted Kurds are deserving of
statehood; the countries among which Kurdistan is divided (Iraq,
Turkey, Syria and Iran) would oppose Kurdish statehood; but the
presence of U.S. troops in Iraq makes this a propitious moment for
Iraq's Kurds, since American soldiers would tend to tamp down
destabilizing conflict.
One should read Ribakoff's entire column.
It is certainly true that the U.S., as a general principle, has long
supported the right of national self-determination. But it is also the
case that, as a pragmatic matter, the American government actually
tends to frown on the break-up of countries, as destabilizing.
These two policy objectives come into conflict when a country is
itself multinational, especially when one of the constituent peoples
is mistreated or repressed. In such cases, U.S. policy is
inconsistent. For example, America did not help the Bengals of East
Pakistan in 1971 when they bloodily separated from West Pakistan to
establish Bangladesh. On the other hand, America strongly supported
the independence of Kosovo in 2008. Although Serbs regard Kosovo as
their nation's historic center, Serb mistreatment of the ethnic
Albanians who comprise 90% of Kosovo's population tilted America
towards independence.
Ribakoff argues that in Iraqi Kurdistan realpolitik should give way to
Wilsonian self-determination. A few observations:
Ribakoff is surely correct in supposing that Turkey would do what it
can to prevent Kurdish sovereignty in Iraq. But Turkey's willingness
to throw a fit is related to the reaction of the U.S. and others to
its tantrums. For example, when, in response to Turkish pressure, the
U.S. soft-pedals the Armenian Genocide, it rewards unreasonableness.
It would be better for Turkey, and for the region, if Turkey got the
message that such conduct is below the standard of liberal democracy
to which it aspires, and is unacceptable.
If the Kurds were to seek independence in Iraq, they should tell
Turkey (and Syria and Iran): This new country does not necessarily
threaten your territorial integrity. The new country of Kurdistan will
become the focus of nationalist sentiment, and Kurds who want to live
in a Kurdish country will move, rather than continue to agitate in
Turkey. (Iraqi Kurdish leaders, if they have any sense, will adopt
this line of thinking and do their best to propagate it among the
Kurds of Turkey.)
American policy is to support the territorial integrity of Iraq. After
all the effort, still unfinished, of establishing a democracy in which
Shia, Sunni and Kurds all feel at home, this policy is not going to
change. (Interestingly, Senator Joe Biden was a prominent advocate of
splitting up Iraq, but Vice President Biden has not broached the
subject). In the absence of American support for Kurdish Independence,
Kurdish autonomy within Iraq is their best bet in the short term.
http://www.examiner.com/x-4814-LA-Middle-Ea stern-Policy-Examiner~y2010m3d26-Is-this-the-right -time-for-an-independent-Kurdistan
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
March 27 2010
Is this the right time for an independent Kurdistan?
March 26, 5:26 PMLA Middle Eastern Policy Examiner
Paul KujawskyPrevious
My colleague, Eurasian Examiner Joe Ribakoff, has written a
provocative piece titled, "Now is the time for a Kurdish state."
Ribakoff argues that the stateless, persecuted Kurds are deserving of
statehood; the countries among which Kurdistan is divided (Iraq,
Turkey, Syria and Iran) would oppose Kurdish statehood; but the
presence of U.S. troops in Iraq makes this a propitious moment for
Iraq's Kurds, since American soldiers would tend to tamp down
destabilizing conflict.
One should read Ribakoff's entire column.
It is certainly true that the U.S., as a general principle, has long
supported the right of national self-determination. But it is also the
case that, as a pragmatic matter, the American government actually
tends to frown on the break-up of countries, as destabilizing.
These two policy objectives come into conflict when a country is
itself multinational, especially when one of the constituent peoples
is mistreated or repressed. In such cases, U.S. policy is
inconsistent. For example, America did not help the Bengals of East
Pakistan in 1971 when they bloodily separated from West Pakistan to
establish Bangladesh. On the other hand, America strongly supported
the independence of Kosovo in 2008. Although Serbs regard Kosovo as
their nation's historic center, Serb mistreatment of the ethnic
Albanians who comprise 90% of Kosovo's population tilted America
towards independence.
Ribakoff argues that in Iraqi Kurdistan realpolitik should give way to
Wilsonian self-determination. A few observations:
Ribakoff is surely correct in supposing that Turkey would do what it
can to prevent Kurdish sovereignty in Iraq. But Turkey's willingness
to throw a fit is related to the reaction of the U.S. and others to
its tantrums. For example, when, in response to Turkish pressure, the
U.S. soft-pedals the Armenian Genocide, it rewards unreasonableness.
It would be better for Turkey, and for the region, if Turkey got the
message that such conduct is below the standard of liberal democracy
to which it aspires, and is unacceptable.
If the Kurds were to seek independence in Iraq, they should tell
Turkey (and Syria and Iran): This new country does not necessarily
threaten your territorial integrity. The new country of Kurdistan will
become the focus of nationalist sentiment, and Kurds who want to live
in a Kurdish country will move, rather than continue to agitate in
Turkey. (Iraqi Kurdish leaders, if they have any sense, will adopt
this line of thinking and do their best to propagate it among the
Kurds of Turkey.)
American policy is to support the territorial integrity of Iraq. After
all the effort, still unfinished, of establishing a democracy in which
Shia, Sunni and Kurds all feel at home, this policy is not going to
change. (Interestingly, Senator Joe Biden was a prominent advocate of
splitting up Iraq, but Vice President Biden has not broached the
subject). In the absence of American support for Kurdish Independence,
Kurdish autonomy within Iraq is their best bet in the short term.
http://www.examiner.com/x-4814-LA-Middle-Ea stern-Policy-Examiner~y2010m3d26-Is-this-the-right -time-for-an-independent-Kurdistan
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress