NATO members merely have the obligation to “consult together” when the territorial integrity of a member state is threatened. Even Article 5 has the “such action as it deems necessary” cop-out.
The real politik here is that even though Turkey is descending into fascism, NATO cannot afford to lose influence over Turkey because of their control of the Bosphorus. If anyone gets too chummy with the kurds, Erdogan just has to hint that he’ll go seek support from Russia.
Russia would do almost anything to have free and uncontested access in and out of the Black Sea. So sucks for the Kurds but it’s not going to happen.
Yes and yes.
Unintended consequences - Turkey invading in force? As for process - you don’t petition someone to establish a country. You just establish it, and defend your borders. Vigorously.
Doesn’t Turkey already “cooperate very selectively”?
Yep, didn’t secure the border with Syria and allowed ISIS fighters to pass freely (because they were also fighting the kurds), allowed ISIS to openly send convoys of tankers back to sell the oil in Turkey. Turkey is now just as unreliable an ally as Pakistan always has been.
Here’s the central issue with Kurdistan: any country that supports Kurdistan is going to end up opposing Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey (and probably Armenia). America, and every other country, has decided that making new Kurdish friends isn’t worth the cost of making new anti-Kurdish enemies. And I don’t see those numbers changing.
Turkey has been completely compromised by Erdogan and his ultra-conservative junta. I hope they have it in them to dig themselves of this whole, no clue if that will ever happen though.
As someone who has been to Kurdistan (during my time in the Army), I can tell you that for that region of the world, there’s no other group that understands modern concepts of gender equality, rule of law and government over tribalism (to a certain degree, they do protect the bulk of the tribal/religious minorities in the region but they have a understandable dislike for Arabs) more than the Kurds.
I remember thinking “Irbil = OK 3rd world city”, “every other city in Iraq = horrible hell hole”…
If Puerto Rico wanted independence (they don’t) and the United States refused to give it to them, do you think the western European countries should side with the United States?
I think it would be unjust for the United States to hold on to Puerto Rico against their will, personally.
Erdogan is a moderate conservative, not an ultra-conservative, and he doesn’t lead a ‘junta’. He represents the majority of Turks, the secularists are a minority. I really, really dislike him, but there’s nothing extreme about him.
Also, this is yet another great reason why NATO was a bad idea when it was founded, and it remains a bad idea today.
So we should have let the Russkis pick off Western European countries piecemeal?
NATO is an anti-Russian alliance, and the Turks aren’t in NATO out of altruism.
You’re not the first first-hand observer I’ve seen report this and I respect your experience, but I’d be careful of drawing too many conclusions from a casual immersion. Honor killings for example remain a serious problem in Iraqi Kurdistan. While laws have been instituted against the practice since 2008, it appears progress has been very slow. I think one reason there may be this disconnect between honest observations by intelligent visitors and statistics is that there is likely a very large urban/rural divide in practices. Remember it was pretty backwoods, rural Yazidi Kurds who stoned that poor girl to death over dating a Muslim boy that was all over the news reports a few years back.
Iraqi Kurdistan is undeniably more pro-western than the central government ( which is probably more pro-Iranian than anything else ). But it is not exactly a shining beacon of modernity. It’s large rural regions are as backwards and possibly in some cases more backwards than in other parts of Iraq.