Hopefully this is non-political enough for GQ…
News reports state that Turkey is very concerned that the liberated Kurds from Iraq will join up with the ones from Iran and Turkey and try and create their own independent country. Why doesn’t Turkey want the Kurds to leave if they are such a problem? Is it general keep-the- country-together thinking, or is it strategic / tied to resources?
Possibly they want the “Kurdistan” territory, not necessarily its Kurds, to stay theirs. And haven’t figured out an internationally acceptable way to keep the land without the Kurds.
It is certainly the land, not the Kurds themselves. Even if they were expelled (an unlikely and unacceptable option), the Kurds would never give up trying to take back their ancestral lands. not only do the Turks want to limit the power of the Kurds in Turkey, they don’t want a Kurdish state to emerge in northern Iraq. The Kurdish problem is possibly the biggest stumbling block to rebuilding Iraq.
(1) Part of the land that could possibly be considered Kurdish land is inside Turkey, which would require Turkey to consider surrendering that land.
(2) Considering how poorly the Kurds have been treated by Turkey, it’s unlikely that a Kurdish nation would be friendly towards Turkey. Turkey would prefer a new ally, not a new friend.
There are at least a dozen threads going right now on the Kurdish question, in GQ and GD, and I have yet to encounter a single post by a Turk explaining the Turkish point of view. Aren’t there any Turkish or Turkish-American dopers out there?
(Come to think of it, I have yet to encounter a post that seems to be from a Kurd. And I know there are Kurdish-Americans. Don’t any of them read SD?)
Absent a Turkish contribution, those of us who do participate in the SDMB – which appear to be mostly Yanks, Canadians, Brits, and other English-speakers – will just have to answer this question based on the obvious: No nation-state wants its territory reduced, for any reason. It seems to be a basic rule of modern political science. I’ve heard it said that wanting more territory just for the sake of having more territory, even if its inhabitants will be problematic to rule, is like wanting to catch cancer so you can have more cells. Nevertheless, that seems to be the way most national leaders think. Territory might bring problems with it but it also brings resources, and strategic positions where you can post your army. A bigger country is, in general terms, a more important country, and every country wants to be important. Why did the Nigerians fight so hard to hang on to Biafra? Why does China want to keep Tibet?
If the Turks could get past this thinking and let their Kurdish provinces go, it would solve a lot of their problems. Turkey would no longer have to resort to police-state tactics to hold the country together, because, so far as I know, the Kurds are the ONLY house minority in Turkey that is large enough and concentrated enough to demand its own state, and that one problem would be solved once and for all. The Turks would be free to improve their human-rights record, opening the door to that long-coveted EU membership. The new state of Kurdistan on their eastern border might not be friendly, not at first, but it would be a useful buffer state between Turkey, Iraq and Iran, simplifying Turkey’s military and security problems.
But, here’s a question I haven’t seen addressed in any thread: When we say “the Turks” want to hold on to Turkish Kurdistan, we always mean the Turkish LEADERS, the political class, want to hold on to it. What about the ordinary, working-class Turks? Do they really care, one way or the other, whether the Kurds go their own way?
I’m sure the Turks would LOVE to get rid of “their” Kurds if they could keep the land that the Kurds live on.
I’m not sure why; I think its prestige more than anything else because the land isn’t very valuable.
Because they go nicely with their whey.
From maps I’ve seen, most of Kurdistan is in Turkey, taking up an irregularly shaped swath comprising 20-30% of the country (my estimate).
Here’s a link to a map: http://www.theestimate.com/public/022699.html Note that an independent Kurdistan would lengthen Turkey’s borders.
I don’t think Turkey will ever let that much of the country go; maybe, though, they’ll grant some limited autonomy.
Based on that map I’d say Iran ain’t all that in favor of it, either.
After all, who remembers the Armenians?
Also, I have to notice that the part Greater Kurdistan currently in Turkey would include the headwaters of both the Tigris and Euphrates – and water-resources issues are a Very Big Deal.
And, yeah, the one thing Turkey, Syria, Iran AND Iraq have pretty much agreed on since the borders were drawn is that they don’t want ANY independent Kurdistan, anywhere.
This is my attempt at a map for a Kurdistan
http://mediaservice.photoisland.com/auction/Apr/20034113029498300334339.jpg
The gold areas are the main Kurdistan
The purple areas are neutral zones. These can be buffer zones between Kurdistan and Turkey and a buffer between Iraq and Kurdistan.
The part of the map in Syria is just an idea, but it’s not likely to happen. The green is the part going into the country and the purple is another neutral zone.
On the top right is a map if all the areas (inc. neutral zones) were to be one nation
The bottom right is Kurdistan with the Syrian area.
I’m sure this would tend to piss alot of people off.
You can be sure the Armenians remember the Kurds. While it was the Turkish government that initiated the Armenian genocide campaign, a majority of the people who carried it out were the local Kurds. The government apparently thought it would be a good policy to use one minority population to eliminate another.
Here is still another map and I think it is the prettiest so far.
It’s just their way.
I think all those maps are a good way to get a damn lot of Kurds killed out of hand.