Spring Break
No good solution for Kurds
Michael B. Harris-Peyton
Issue date: 11/16/07 Section: Ed-Op
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Watch the news and see what happens when you let long-gone European empires draw borders. Look at a map of Europe, and you see curvy borders that are established along linguistic and geographic lines - you see the same in most of Asia, and at least partially, in the Americas. But in Africa and the Middle East, you see the occasional river border and lots of straight lines drawn arbitrarily through former colonized territory. It happened to the Kurds, and now they have all sorts of trouble.
Over the past number of years, the Kurdish people of the northern Middle East have been living in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey, all relatively in the same area, near the borders. There is an unofficial "Kurdistan" there, and it's cut up among four states. Like any other ethnic group, some of the Kurds want to cut the territory out and create themselves a homeland - a real, political Kurdistan.
The states that possess the territory that is "Kurdistan" don't want to give it up, and some of the Kurds want them to. And since a huge proportion of geographic "Kurdistan" is in Turkey, the Kurds and Turks are having issues. While the Kurds have been allies to the United States, they have crossed the line, attacking the Turkish military and settlements in the region, in a hope that in the new, destabilized Middle East, they might be able to get what they want.
The problem is that what the Kurds have gotten a reputation for in Turkey, and what many Kurdish groups have actually been doing in Turkey is good, old-fashioned terrorism. These Kurdish separatist groups have been striking from northern Iraq basically uninhibited, because the border is long and the rest of the Iraqi government has other issues it's dealing with.
In response, the Turkish military has threatened to invade northern Iraq. Turkey is doing what the United States has been trying to do in every war it has ever fought: get to the source of the problem, and stop it.
This puts the United States and Iraq in a very awkward position. Do we side with the Kurds, who we have worked with before and who have, undoubtedly, had a really hard time in the past couple of decades? Or, do we side with Turkey, a friendly state who is seeking to solve its domestic terrorism problem? Do we let Turkey invade northern Iraq, risking possible loss of face, infrastructural damage, and many deaths; or do we let the Kurdish terrorists go unhampered, saying to the world: "Listen, if the United States likes you, it's okay if you act like terrorists, because they'll look the other way."
Over the past number of years, the Kurdish people of the northern Middle East have been living in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey, all relatively in the same area, near the borders. There is an unofficial "Kurdistan" there, and it's cut up among four states. Like any other ethnic group, some of the Kurds want to cut the territory out and create themselves a homeland - a real, political Kurdistan.
The states that possess the territory that is "Kurdistan" don't want to give it up, and some of the Kurds want them to. And since a huge proportion of geographic "Kurdistan" is in Turkey, the Kurds and Turks are having issues. While the Kurds have been allies to the United States, they have crossed the line, attacking the Turkish military and settlements in the region, in a hope that in the new, destabilized Middle East, they might be able to get what they want.
The problem is that what the Kurds have gotten a reputation for in Turkey, and what many Kurdish groups have actually been doing in Turkey is good, old-fashioned terrorism. These Kurdish separatist groups have been striking from northern Iraq basically uninhibited, because the border is long and the rest of the Iraqi government has other issues it's dealing with.
In response, the Turkish military has threatened to invade northern Iraq. Turkey is doing what the United States has been trying to do in every war it has ever fought: get to the source of the problem, and stop it.
This puts the United States and Iraq in a very awkward position. Do we side with the Kurds, who we have worked with before and who have, undoubtedly, had a really hard time in the past couple of decades? Or, do we side with Turkey, a friendly state who is seeking to solve its domestic terrorism problem? Do we let Turkey invade northern Iraq, risking possible loss of face, infrastructural damage, and many deaths; or do we let the Kurdish terrorists go unhampered, saying to the world: "Listen, if the United States likes you, it's okay if you act like terrorists, because they'll look the other way."
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 4
HEJAR
posted 11/16/07 @ 5:19 AM EST
HI!
There is a misunderstanding here. In none of the states which controll a part of Kurdistan, there is no demand for separation.
The strange consept of "Terrorism" really is not applicable in he case of Turkey, There is a war, Either both sides of the war are terrorists,or the definition should be clarified. (Continued…)
Bakhtiar
posted 11/17/07 @ 9:33 AM EST
There is a cure for even complicated problems as the just Kurdish isuue. It is called democracy. The occupiers of Kurdistan need to solve the Kurdish problem with ballots not bullets. (Continued…)
Post a Comment