Tweet
THE KURDS WON'T SACRIFICE THEMSELVES TO THE WEST
http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/conflicts/27-03-2012/120905-kurds_west-0/
27.03.2012
The declaration of the Kurdish state, which had been scheduled by the
leader of the Kurdish Autonomous Region Masoud Barzani for the 21st
March 2012, did not take place. Ishkhan Miroev, editor-in-chief of
"The Free Kurdistan" shared his thoughts in an interview with Pravda.Ru
about the failure.
In the course of history, the Kurds have fallen victim to domestic
and foreign enemies. As everyone already knows, the Serves World Peace
Treaty, signed in 1920 in France between Antanta and defeated Turkey,
granted Kurdistan permission to be independent. And, as we know, the
Kurds were deceived. All this led to their lands being immediately
divided up between a few countries, and that subsequently led to
tragedy. That was how Saddam Hussein managed to destroy 5000 Kurds
with chemical weapons. Or there's the example of Syria, where, with
complete permissiveness, the government carried out a bloody conflict
in 2004, costing the Kurdish people dozens of lives.
That is why they do not trust anybody and play a careful game, for
they are afraid of once again becoming a gaming chip for other, more
powerful, countries. The Kurds have understood Reagan's words well,
when he said that Kurdistan is a matchbox, that might at any moment
act in its own aims and interests.
Nevertheless, in view of what you have already said, the Kurds would
not utterly reject the idea of creating their own state?
Share * Print version * + - Font Size * Send to friend
The question is would the other players let such a state be created?
Firstly, danger is emanating from Turkey, which is prepared to send
troops in to strangle the new state as it germinates. The Turks
know all too well that the situation in the Middle East is changing
very quickly and after Assad's fall from power, the final hour will
come for the Iranians and Turks of Kurdistan. These dangers are not
coincidental; they all follow one another like links in a chain. And
of course it is possible that the "loudest" event might happen amongst
the Turks in Kurdistan itself, where almost half of all Kurds live,
around 20million people altogether. In spite of the fact that the
Turkish authorities are consciously trying to reduce the number of
Kurdish people, as by the way many other countries are also doing,
in reality the Kurds number more than 40 million people.
And what about Iran?
Even though certain steps have been taken by the government of Iran
in terms of the Kurds, at the heart of all this is the fact that
they do not solve problems, in as much as the question of cultural
autonomy has still not been decided, and they are fighting for their
constitutional rights. I have noticed that there aren't any serious
problems between the Kurds and the Iranians themselves. They have a
lot in common; these are primordial but not alien inhabitants of a
region with a single Indo-European language at its core.
Nevertheless, the Iranian authorities are, to put it mildly, far
from sorting out the Kurds' problems . Generally, when we talk about
the Kurdish situation it's impossible to ignore the fact that in
Russia they have many more rights than in their homeland. It is no
coincidence that the brigade PJAK is active in the Iranian part of
Kurdistan, which is a military wing of the Russian Party Committee.
They are not insurgents or criminals, as they are depicted to be
in Tehran, rather they are simply people struggling for their human
rights.
In what way does this situation pose a threat to Armenia?
Armenia is no exception to the rule, since those countries which Kurds
live in also oppress them. Here we can observe a simply enormous
anti-Kurdish campaign. In many respects it has created a desire to
return to "Western Armenia" and does not exclude the fact that in case
of leaving this Kurdish border zone between the Armenian and Turkish
territory of Yerevan it will want to "get it back again" as it used
to be when in 1920 the Armenians attempted to create "Great Armenia".
But nobody will give anyone anything that simply. A large part of these
lands which the Armenian revenge-seekers dream of are sitting on the
Turkish border-zone and is territory inhabited by Kurds. Of course, it
is impossible to ignore the question of the Kurds' historical claim,
representatives of whom took part in the events of 1915-18 fighting
on the Turkish side, a fact which in Yerevan has not been forgotten.
It is appropriate at this point to mention an Armenian saying, which
states that "you can have a conversation with the Devil, but just not
with a Kurd." This view has led to the almost total expulsion of the
Kurdish population from Armenia, with the exception of a few Ezidi,
a people from the North of Iraq.
The question then arises as to the precise borders of the future
Kurdish state. Will it accept and recognise the Iranian authorities?
After all, from the moment of the declaration of the autonomous region
of Iranian Southern Kurdistan, a number of disputed points had not
been resolved, but the most important ones had...
Barzani declared Kirkuk to be "the heart of the Kurdish state" which
they resolutely disagreed with in Baghdad. The thing is that Saddam
Hussein evicted Kurds from that strategically oil-rich region,
replacing them with Turks which signified the arising of future
conflict.
Sergei Balmasov
Pravda.Ru
Translated by Emily Ferris
http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/conflicts/27-03-2012/120905-kurds_west-0/
27.03.2012
The declaration of the Kurdish state, which had been scheduled by the
leader of the Kurdish Autonomous Region Masoud Barzani for the 21st
March 2012, did not take place. Ishkhan Miroev, editor-in-chief of
"The Free Kurdistan" shared his thoughts in an interview with Pravda.Ru
about the failure.
In the course of history, the Kurds have fallen victim to domestic
and foreign enemies. As everyone already knows, the Serves World Peace
Treaty, signed in 1920 in France between Antanta and defeated Turkey,
granted Kurdistan permission to be independent. And, as we know, the
Kurds were deceived. All this led to their lands being immediately
divided up between a few countries, and that subsequently led to
tragedy. That was how Saddam Hussein managed to destroy 5000 Kurds
with chemical weapons. Or there's the example of Syria, where, with
complete permissiveness, the government carried out a bloody conflict
in 2004, costing the Kurdish people dozens of lives.
That is why they do not trust anybody and play a careful game, for
they are afraid of once again becoming a gaming chip for other, more
powerful, countries. The Kurds have understood Reagan's words well,
when he said that Kurdistan is a matchbox, that might at any moment
act in its own aims and interests.
Nevertheless, in view of what you have already said, the Kurds would
not utterly reject the idea of creating their own state?
Share * Print version * + - Font Size * Send to friend
The question is would the other players let such a state be created?
Firstly, danger is emanating from Turkey, which is prepared to send
troops in to strangle the new state as it germinates. The Turks
know all too well that the situation in the Middle East is changing
very quickly and after Assad's fall from power, the final hour will
come for the Iranians and Turks of Kurdistan. These dangers are not
coincidental; they all follow one another like links in a chain. And
of course it is possible that the "loudest" event might happen amongst
the Turks in Kurdistan itself, where almost half of all Kurds live,
around 20million people altogether. In spite of the fact that the
Turkish authorities are consciously trying to reduce the number of
Kurdish people, as by the way many other countries are also doing,
in reality the Kurds number more than 40 million people.
And what about Iran?
Even though certain steps have been taken by the government of Iran
in terms of the Kurds, at the heart of all this is the fact that
they do not solve problems, in as much as the question of cultural
autonomy has still not been decided, and they are fighting for their
constitutional rights. I have noticed that there aren't any serious
problems between the Kurds and the Iranians themselves. They have a
lot in common; these are primordial but not alien inhabitants of a
region with a single Indo-European language at its core.
Nevertheless, the Iranian authorities are, to put it mildly, far
from sorting out the Kurds' problems . Generally, when we talk about
the Kurdish situation it's impossible to ignore the fact that in
Russia they have many more rights than in their homeland. It is no
coincidence that the brigade PJAK is active in the Iranian part of
Kurdistan, which is a military wing of the Russian Party Committee.
They are not insurgents or criminals, as they are depicted to be
in Tehran, rather they are simply people struggling for their human
rights.
In what way does this situation pose a threat to Armenia?
Armenia is no exception to the rule, since those countries which Kurds
live in also oppress them. Here we can observe a simply enormous
anti-Kurdish campaign. In many respects it has created a desire to
return to "Western Armenia" and does not exclude the fact that in case
of leaving this Kurdish border zone between the Armenian and Turkish
territory of Yerevan it will want to "get it back again" as it used
to be when in 1920 the Armenians attempted to create "Great Armenia".
But nobody will give anyone anything that simply. A large part of these
lands which the Armenian revenge-seekers dream of are sitting on the
Turkish border-zone and is territory inhabited by Kurds. Of course, it
is impossible to ignore the question of the Kurds' historical claim,
representatives of whom took part in the events of 1915-18 fighting
on the Turkish side, a fact which in Yerevan has not been forgotten.
It is appropriate at this point to mention an Armenian saying, which
states that "you can have a conversation with the Devil, but just not
with a Kurd." This view has led to the almost total expulsion of the
Kurdish population from Armenia, with the exception of a few Ezidi,
a people from the North of Iraq.
The question then arises as to the precise borders of the future
Kurdish state. Will it accept and recognise the Iranian authorities?
After all, from the moment of the declaration of the autonomous region
of Iranian Southern Kurdistan, a number of disputed points had not
been resolved, but the most important ones had...
Barzani declared Kirkuk to be "the heart of the Kurdish state" which
they resolutely disagreed with in Baghdad. The thing is that Saddam
Hussein evicted Kurds from that strategically oil-rich region,
replacing them with Turks which signified the arising of future
conflict.
Sergei Balmasov
Pravda.Ru
Translated by Emily Ferris