Last year, I watched a Vice episode that focused on Rojava (Syrian Kurdistan) and then I watched a more in-depth series about it last night on BBC America.
The territory, its leaders and its inhabitants promote all of the values that we hold so high: equality for women, equality for all races and religions, freedoms of expression. And it at least appears that they practice what they preach. The issue that Rojava has is that it’s not independent and must constantly defend itself from attacks its enemies (which happen to be all of its neighbors). As a result, it’s inhabitants are always looking for ways to leave to other free countries. But if the US and other western countries provided some military and financial support, it’s chances of survival and success would be greatly enhanced.
Could the region’s problematic relationship with Turkey be a part of it?
Shit, I dunno. I think the real reason is that it’s a small area, with a relatively small population, that simply does not impinge on Western awareness.
Likely because it would complicate relations with Turkey.
If the western Kurds achieve autonomy then the PKK (which Turkey still regards as a terrorist organization) will be pressured by its younger members to push harder for autonomy within Turkey. Now the PKK and government agreed to a ceasefire a few years back, so either the ceasefire is abandoned or the Turkish Kurds begin protesting. Now the Turkish government fended off a year of demonstrations and are unlikely to want mass unrest in their eastern province as well as in Istanbul.
Of course if the military are called in to deal with the PKK, they regain some legitimacy and ability to thwart the Erdogan government. Given how little love the AKP has for the military I would imagine that would cause all sorts of domestic instability - or even an opportunity for a more authoritarian approach by the government.
And then there’s the fact that it’s small, no one know who or what the western kurds are and no one else cares.
Isn’t Kurdish enlightened thinking really more a matter of tribal necessity? They’re smaller than their neighbors, so they need all hands on deck to stand a chance?
Yeah, I get that. It just seems like you’re suggesting that somehow invalidates or minimizes the good things they’re doing, and I don’t understand how that follows. Do you have a reason to think that if the West supported Rojava, it would turn repressive?
This might provide some insight into the way which Rojava has come about.
I find it interesting that there are two diametrically opposed ideologies fighting each other, the fighting at Kobane could be interpreted as a trial of strength as to who has the better vision for the future than the other.
A lot of that enlightenment thinking was centered around reducing the power of the monarch and/or the nobility and spreading it around to learned gentlemen. That need not be driven by selfless ideals either, it’s just replacing hereditary power with some conception of meritocratic power. It still represents a power grab.
I still think they were mostly in the right, though.
Do they really want anything to do with us, outside of the enemy of my enemy is my friend aspects? I imagine if they’re kind of anti-West, then that could explain a lot as well.