The way things are going in Iraq, it seems as likely as not that the Kurds will declare independence in a year or two. That would present the U.S. with a conflict, because the Iraqi Kurds have been our allies up to now, but the Turks have been our allies far longer and the prospect of an independent Kurdistan anywhere would embolden their own Kurdish nationalists.
Things would be a lot simpler if the Turks could be persuaded to grant independence to their Kurdish region – peacefully. Then they could unite with Iraqi Kurdistan. The status of the Kurds in Syria and Iran can be sorted out later. Being rid of their Kurdish problem would greatly improve Turkey’s prospects of joining the European Union – because one of the biggest impediments to their admission is Turkey’s poor human rights record, and the necessity of holding down Kurdish nationalism is a major reason for that record. And if the EU admits Turkey-inluding-Turkish-Kurdistan, Kurdish nationalism becomes the EU’s problem, and nobody wants that. It’s a problem that is just not going to die down, no matter how democratic and humane Turkey becomes.
Is there any way Turkey could simply be paid, or bribed, to grant independence to their Kurds? Massive U.S. and EU financial aid? Generous trade concessions? Anything? What would it take?
Is there any way the US could be pursuaded to let go of their Native American region? Is there any way the Spanish could be pursuaded to let go of their Basque region? Is there any way…
If by “sorted out later” you mean settled thru violence, then I guess I agree with you.
Has there ever been a time when a nation voluntarily gave up a significant chunk of its territory and people? I guess you could say it happened in Czechoslovkia, but that was more of a mutual agreement to part ways. Both sides had reasons to disolve the bonds.
No, but they do have “sovereignty.” George Bush could explain what that means better than I can , but apparently it allows them to operate casinos in states where gambling is illegal.
Maybe.
The UK voluntarily gave up a lot of territory and people after WWII. Admittedly, dismantling a remote colonial empire is a different thing than letting go of territory which is contiguous with your national territory.
International pressure was enough to get the Indonesians out of East Timor . . . eventually. It helped that ET had a previous separate existence and that few countries recognized Indonesia’s annexation of it. But there’s no country, SFAIK, that does not recognize Turkey’s sovereignty over its southeastern provinces. That’s why I’m thinking in terms of “bribes” instead of sanctions to persuade the Turks – no stick, all carrot.
Kurdistan won’t break off. The fact that Turkey would invade regardless, and the sizeable minority in Iran which would cause tension too. The only concession Kurds are going to receive is large scale autonomy within Iraq, which, at the moment seems to be a worthwhile offer. It has the benefit of managing its own affairs (well most of them) and still be largely protected by Iraqi forces (when trained up and being able to hold their own, granted is going slowly, but will be eventually able to take responsibility for themselves)
I noticed the first line of what you said ‘the way things are going’ which doesn’t translate into thats what it will be like forever, which also means not everything can be solved with independence.
Brain Glutton: I doubt very strongly that any American Indian tribe operates a casino “in any state where gambling is illegal.” However, a lot of them are making fair amounts of money operating casinos in sovereign enclaves surrounded by states where gambling is illegal.
You might as well accuse the Pope of violating the laws of Italy by making rules not in accord with the Italian constitution for Vatican City, or Rainier of making laws for Monaco without clearing them with the French parliament first.
Turkey intentionally gave up control of most of the Ottoman Empire following World War I – partly as a result of Wilsonian national-sovereignty concepts enforced by the Allies, but partly a desire of the new government to constitute Anatolia and Turkey-in-Europe as a specifically Turkish nation, rather than a multiethnic empire. Unfortunately, there were a few minority peoples within the bounds of the resulting nation, and their treatment by Turkey has ranged from poor to execrable. Prior to the 20th Century, “Armenia” constituted a band across the easternmost parts of Turkey from the present ex-Soviet republic to the vicinity of Alexandretta; most of the Turkish Armenians either fell victims to genocide, or emigrated with whatever they could salvage. The Kurds were somewhat a part of this same problem. (Cassandra note: expect the Azerbaijani people to start making noises, as the Kurds gain more international support: they are divided between the Azerbaijan state (adjacent to Armenia), Iraq, and Iran.)
There have been a handful of exceptions, but the general rule is that no country ever gives up a portion of its territory unless it has to. Turkey does not look likely to be the next exception to this rule. The Turkish government has always maintained a strong stance on preserving its territory and making no concessions to non-Turkish minorities.
Another issue would be the mixture of ethnic groups. If the regions of Turkey where Kurds are a majority became a seperate nation, you would have a Turkish minority in Kurdistan. And history has shown that the Kurds are no better than anyone else when it comes to kicking an ethnic rival when it’s down.
That was my point, Poly. The Indians are broken wards of the government, but they still have that little bit of “sovereignty” which makes their reservation in the state where it’s located but not of it. On the other hand, they’re still voting citizens (and taxpayers!) of that state and of the United States.
Not the same at all. Monaco and Vatican City have a lot more real sovereignty than our Indian nations have.
I’m sure that possibility has already occurred to those within the Bush Admin who are making noises about war with Iran. And if there’s no Azeri secessionism in Iran already, they’ll stir some up. Divide and conquer.
I think its more likely that in a breakdown of Iraq that Turkey attempt to “unite” Kurds by taking them into Turkey Kurds might then have a chance at being part of the European Union ! (gasp)
One does wonder what Turkey gains from keeping beligerent Kurds under their control. I bet they spend more on security and military than they gain financially from controlling the area. Still politically no one wants to have less “power”.
, but apparently it allows them to operate casinos in states where gambling is illegal.
Kurds might then have a chance at being part of the European Union ! (gasp)