The Triangle

Issue date: 2/29/08 Section: Ed-Op

The difference in the two situations is a matter of scale and geography. In Kosovo, once NATO established autonomy, violent Kosovar separatist activity slowed down. Kosovo chose to take the more diplomatic route, attempting to negotiate that they should be allowed to be sovereign in their own right. While the Kurds also have a diplomatic effort to establish some "Kurdistan," their headlines are stolen by the violet PKK, who unlike the militant Kosovar separatists - refused to go away when autonomy was established. They refused to go away because only Iraqi Kurds were granted autonomy - the Kurds living in Turkey, Syria, and Iran are still under the authority of those nations' governments. Establishing a sovereign "Kurdistan," couldn't be enthusiastically sponsored by the U.S. for fear of seriously angering the states that possess the traditionally Kurdish areas.

In short, the only real differences between the two separatist movements are politics, media coverage and the refusal of the PKK to negotiate in any material way. That's really not fair to the Kurds. The U.S. in general supports ethnic groups seeking their own states - hence Kosovo, Israel and (questionably) Palestine.

The lack of support for the Kurdish state is slightly hypocritical, but also partly the fault of the militarism of the PKK, which drives U.S. politicians away from the Kurdish cause with their violent tactics. And to be sure, the presence of Turkish bombers, tanks, and soldiers isn't helping any. Soaking separatism in blood just makes fewer countries willing to touch it.



Michael B. Harris-Peyton is a sophomore majoring in English and Japanese. He can be reached at ed-op@thetriangle.org.

< prev Page 2 of 2

Article Tools