Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Astarjian: A Second Xoybun?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Astarjian: A Second Xoybun?

    ASTARJIAN: A SECOND XOYBUN?

    by Dr. Henry Astarjian

    http://www.armenianweekly.com/2012/03/22/astarjian-a-second-xoybun/
    March 22, 2012

    In the present turmoil in the Middle East-characterized by massive
    political upheaval, renewed genocidal military operations, threat of
    nuclear proliferation, and massive population shifts-the Kurdish Cause
    occupies a central position of concern to the governments of Turkey,
    Iran, Iraq, and Syria, and of course us, the Armenians.

    The issue is not new; the Kurdish struggle to be accepted as an ethnic
    group having some kind of self-rule started around 1843 when their
    leader in Bohtan, Prince Badrkhan, mobilized a 40,000 man-strong
    army consisting of Armenians and Kurds, and waged a war against the
    Ottoman oppressor. Armenians participated eagerly and enthusiastically,
    for in it they saw their salvation from Turkish tyranny.

    This alliance was also a blessing for the Armenians since the Kurdish
    tribes, who had been their enemies in the past, became their allies
    against Turkish rule. The new situation dissolved the alliance that
    had existed between Armenians and the Turks against the Kurdish tribes.

    In their separate ways, Kurds and Armenians have long struggled for
    their national rights and, in the case of the Kurds, also for ethnic
    identity. The uprisings led by Sheikh Oubaidullah and Sheikh Sa'eed
    at the beginning of the first quarter of the last century are good
    examples.

    The Armeno-Kurdish relationship has been sporadic and untrustworthy,
    although there have been periods of cooperation.

    In the chaos of shifting alliances, personal and ethnic interests and
    ambitions, political dynamics changed yet again. This time with German
    engineering and premeditated planning by Ittihad ve Terakki (Young
    Turks), the Kurds, in conjunction with the government and some Turkish
    people, carried out the great genocide of 1915. They slaughtered
    and looted, raped our women, and kidnapped our children. For them,
    implementing the genocide was not a patriotic act serving the Kurdish
    Cause.

    Masoud Barzani In the aftermath of the genocide, nursing profound
    hatred, Armenians had no significant contact with the Kurds. Some
    felt that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who had come to power in 1921,
    avenged their tragedy by beheading more than 700 prominent Kurdish
    personalities and mullahs, though in reality the beheadings had
    different motivations.

    Ataturk committed a genocide of sorts against the Kurdish people by
    denying them their ethnicity, and depriving them from speaking their
    language and practicing their culture. Furthermore the state engaged
    in ethnic cleansing by abducting Kurdish children and placing them
    in remote schools, giving them Turkish names, brainwashing them,
    and giving them an ethnic Turkish identity.

    Ataturk could kill people, but he could not kill the Kurds' national
    aspirations.

    In the late 1920's, the Kurds waged an armed struggle against the
    central government. It was organized by the "Xoybun (Khoyboon) Party,
    founded by Kurds and Armenians who succeeded in establishing the
    Republic of Ararat and declaring independence on Oct. 28, 1927." The
    ARF had played a pivotal role in ushering the uprising to victory.

    Turkish authorities crushed the newborn republic in September 1930,
    but the idea of the Kurdish Cause not only survived, it propelled
    one step forward. The revolutionary fervor peaked when Seyid Riza,
    an Alevi leader of Zaza tribes, led a rebellion; Ataturk's forces
    responded by launching a brutal massacre of the Dersimlies and the
    Zaza, details of which are seeping out just now. The year was 1937.

    The Kurds never gave up. In the immediate aftermath of World War II,
    circumstances were right for the Kurds of Iran to create yet another
    republic, this time in the province of Mahabad. The Soviets, pursuing
    their own interests, facilitated the creation of this republic, which
    declared its independence from the central government in Tehran on
    Jan. 22, 1946. It was headed by Qazi Muhammad. Mala Mustafa Barzani
    was the defense minister. Tehran, with the help of the British and
    the Soviets, crushed the Mahabad Republic 11 months after its founding.

    Qazi Muhammad went to the gallows, while Mala Mustafa escaped to his
    base in Barzan in Iraqi Kurdistan.

    On Feb. 3, this year, and under the auspices of Iraqi Kurdistan
    President Masoud Barzani, the feuding Kurdish parties of Iran, together
    with Kurdish leaders from all over greater Kurdistan, celebrated the
    66th anniversary of the Republic of Mahabad. The event was unusual
    in that it was the first celebration in 66 years. What prompted
    this gathering?

    Stemming from their revolutionary history and in his speech to the
    celebrants, Barzani vowed to work to unite the Kurds of Turkey, Iran,
    Iraq and Syria to realize their dream of a Greater Kurdistan. A Kurdish
    statesman of Barzani's stature had never before made such an overt
    statement so loudly. The statement had far-reaching implications, the
    most obvious of which was reconciling different Kurdish tribes and
    political groups in preparation for re-committing to a Mahabad-type
    Kurdish republic.

    In fact, the plan was initiated and driven by the U.S. to fight the
    Islamic Republic of Iran from within, and free the world from its
    nuclear threat. Barzani owed one to the U.S. He tried but the effort
    was fruitless; enmity between the Iranian Kurdish political parties
    prevented any kind of reconciliation.

    Leaving details and further analysis for another time, what concerns us
    most is what has been known for a long time, but not through the mouth
    of a Kurdish-elected official like Barzani-and that is commitment
    to create a unified Kurdistan combining Iraqi Kurdistan with that
    of Iran, Syria, and Turkey. The formulators of such a union must
    take into account the fact that part of what they call Kurdistan is
    Western Armenia. We are the sole owners of the six villayets, which
    are now conveniently and arbitrarily cartographed into Kurdish maps.

    This is unacceptable, and if it remains as is, the Armeno-Kurdish
    rapprochement is dead on arrival.

    The rights of Armenians and Kurds to land and water in Anatolia was
    delineated by President Woodrow Wilson and the League of Nations. It is
    a fair and just solution to our mutual concerns. Neither the Lausanne
    Treaty nor any other unjust treaty can erase its provisions.

    Gestures to renovate and return churches, which should not have been
    confiscated and destroyed in the first place, are welcome, but the
    pending issues are more complicated than celebrating Mass in the
    Akhtamar and Sourp Giragos churches.

    The first manifesto of the Kurdish Parliament in Exile-issued in
    Brussels, and apologizing in the name of the Kurdish nation for the
    atrocities committed by the Kurdish tribes-though honest and noble in
    and of itself, does not materially change the situation on the ground.

    We, collectively, have overcome most of the psychological trauma
    from the murder of our parents and grandparents. Real politics
    rejects emotions.

    History, geography, national interests, and commonality have coined
    an inevitable common destiny for us, from which it is impossible
    to divorce, unless we relinquish our rights to Western Armenia,
    our motherland.

    Looking forward, the question begging answers is: Could there be
    another Xoybun?

Working...
X