Nowadays, almost everyone agrees that the Palestinian people deserve a state and that they should not live under Israeli rule. Most Israelis share this view, including even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has reluctantly stated his own commitment to a two-state solution. In many Western democracies, a strong left-wing constituency regularly organizes demonstrations in favor of Palestinian independence.
The argument for Palestinian statehood is anchored in a fundamentally moral claim for national self-determination. Yet, when it comes to securing the same right for the Kurdish people, the West has been shamefully and strangely silent.
Western democracies offered no support for the Kurdistan Regional Government’s (KRG) independence referendum in late September, and they have not spoken out against the Iraqi and Turkish governments’ threats to crush the KRG’s bid for statehood by force.
When officials in the EU or the US give a reason for opposing Kurdish independence, it always comes down to realpolitik.
Iraq’s territorial integrity must be preserved, they say, and independence for the KRG could destabilize Turkey and Iran, owing to those countries’ sizeable Kurdish minorities.
However, these arguments merely underscore a double standard. Moral claims for self-determination are justly raised in the case of the Palestinians, but they are entirely absent from the international discourse about Kurdistan. Worse still, the brutal oppression of the Kurds over many generations has been totally overlooked.
In Iraq under then-president Saddam Hussein, the Kurds were subjected to genocidal chemical weapons attacks. In Turkey, the military has razed hundreds of Kurdish villages.
Among the arguments used to deny the Kurds their right to self-determination, the defense of Iraq’s territorial integrity is the most spurious and hypocritical of all.
When British statesmen established Iraq as a distinct political entity after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, they did so in accordance with their own imperialist interests. Accordingly, they disregarded the territory’s history, geography, demography, and ethnic and religious diversity.
The residents of this newly conjured state were never actually asked if they wanted to live in a country with an overwhelming Shiite majority and large Kurdish and Christian minorities. They certainly were never asked if they wanted to be ruled by a Sunni dynasty that the British had implanted from the Hejaz, now a part of Saudi Arabia.
Initially, under the Treaty of Sevres, which the defeated Ottoman Empire signed in August 1920, the Kurds, like the Armenians, were promised an independent state.
However, the victorious Allied powers later abandoned this promise and the Kurdish people have lived under constant oppression ever since.
In what became northern Iraq, the Kurds, like the country’s Assyrian Christians, were for decades denied recognition of their distinct language and culture by hegemonic Arab rulers in Baghdad. In this context, “territorial integrity” is nothing more than an alibi for ethnic or religious oppression.
Similarly, the tens of millions of Kurds living in Turkey and Iran have also long been denied basic human and cultural rights. It is thus understandable that the Turkish and Iranian governments would object to the KRG’s independence bid: They fear the emergence, if it succeeds, of similar movements among their own oppressed Kurdish populations.
However, the prospect of an independent Palestine destabilizing Jordan is never offered as an argument against Palestinian statehood, nor should such an argument be used against Iraq’s Kurds. Moreover, the KRG has already established a relatively open and pluralistic society.
As a semi-autonomous region, Iraqi Kurdistan operates under a multiparty system the likes of which one will not find in neighboring Arab countries, let alone in Iran or Turkey, which is increasingly turning toward authoritarianism.
National self-determination is a universal right that should not be denied to populations suffering under oppressive nondemocratic regimes. The same arguments that rightly apply to the Palestinians should apply equally to the Kurds.
Human rights activists who demonstrate for Palestinian statehood should be no less vocal on behalf of Kurdish statehood. Human rights claims — unless they are applied selectively as part of a hypocritical sham — should always trump realpolitik.
Throughout their long, tragic history, the Kurds have repeatedly been abandoned by the West, to its great shame. This must not happen again.
Kurdish Peshmerga have been Western democracies’ staunchest allies in the fight against the Islamic State group. It would be a bitter travesty to abandon the Kurds to the mercy of the Iraqi or Turkish governments in their time of need.
Shlomo Avineri is a professor of political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a member of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. He served as director-general of Israel’s foreign ministry under former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just