Kurdistan – a viable state

[alan131210]

For the last two decades Kurdish nationalism has remained more alive than at any other time in the history of the Kurdish struggle. Strategies to establish our own country have never been far away. The slogan of an independent Kurdish state has never been relinquished.
More than a century ago, Sheik Ubadulla Shamzini’s uprising spread throughout Kurdistan – comprising, Iranian Kurdistan and Ottoman Kurdistan – encompassing the region in 1880. Most Kurdish historians have analysed this as one of the most powerful uprisings. Sheik Ubadulla Shamzini demanded the formation of a Kurdish state. The slogan of independence for the Arabs came later – around 1916, from the Sharif of Mecca – and with the help of the British. Even though the Arab nation held a conference in Paris they only managed to raise the slogan of decentralisation rather than independence. The first Kurdish newspaper – ‘Kurdistan’, published in Cairo in 1898 – had as its main slogan, ‘an independent Kurdistan, and nothing less’. The content of all its articles adopted this principle.
Hadji Kadir Coie , the famous Kurdish poet, always advocated Kurdish rule, and independence for Kurdistan (he died in Istanbul in1897). Most of the time his poetry spoke about a Kurdish state. In 1922 Sheik Mehmood created a Southern State of Kurdistan, and for the first time we had our own stamps and a Kurdish cabinet. When Sheik Mehmood declared an independent Kurdistan he was sitting next to Captain Noel, the British representative. In 1919, at the peace conference , Sharif Pasha gave a detailed report about Kurdish independence to the Alliance Powers.The Pact of Sever had chapters and sections (62.63,64) devoted to Kurdish independence, which has never been implemented.
Qazi Mohamed formally proclaimed his Kurdish people’s government on January 22, 1946 in Chwar Chira square, where the town’s only two paved streets crossed. In attendance, as he raised the Kurdish flag, were Iranian tribal chiefs, KDP officials, three Soviet officers in a jeep with machine guns, and Barzani, soon to be seen decked out in a Soviet general’s uniform, with high boots and stiff shoulder straps.
We need to understand the concept of state, law, the regulations behind the state and national powers, and to analyse international law underpinning the nation state. Finally, to enrich our essay we will consider vivid examples of newly-built nation states throughout history.

[alan131210]

Treaty of Sèvres

THIS TREATY OF SUPPOSED PEACE between the allied and associated powers including France, United Kingdom, Italy, Japan, and Turkey was signed in Sèvres, France on August 10, 1920. The purpose of the treaty, allegedly, was to have every ethnicity enjoy its national identity with internationally recognized national borders. However, the composition of the committee and the conformation of Iran and others would have made it difficult for the treaty to be implemented.

In Article 62 it was determined that a commission that consisted of three members appointed by the British, French and Italian governments would draft a geo-ethnic map that shows non-Turkish areas. It stated, “… within six months from the coming into force of the present Treaty a scheme of local autonomy for the predominantly Kurdish areas lying east of the Euphrates, south of the southern boundary of Armenia as it may be hereafter determined, and north of the
frontier of Turkey with Syria and Mesopotamia, as defined in Article 27, II (2) and (3). If unanimity cannot be secured on any question, it will be referred by the members of the Commission to their respective Governments. The scheme shall contain full safeguards for the protection of the Assyro-Chaldeans and other racial or religious minorities within these areas…” Further, the Treaty in Article 63 stated, “The Turkish Government hereby agrees to accept and execute the decisions of both the Commissions mentioned in Article 62 within three months from their communication to the said Government.” Furthermore, the Treaty in Article 64 explained, “If within one year from the coming into force of the present Treaty the Kurdish people within the areas defined in Article 62 shall address themselves to the Council of the League of Nations in such a manner as to show that a majority of the population of these areas desires independence from Turkey, and if the Council then considers that these peoples are capable of such independence and recommends that it should be granted to them, Turkey hereby agrees to execute such a recommendation, and to renounce all rights and title over these areas. The detailed provisions for such renunciation will form the subject of a separate agreement between the Principal Allied Powers and Turkey. If and when such renunciation takes place, no objection will be raised by the Principal Allied Powers to the voluntary adhesion to such an independent Kurdish State of the Kurds inhabiting that part of Kurdistan which has hitherto been included in the Mosul vilayet.”

The Treaty of Sèvres was signed by the last Turkish Sultan. However, it never was ratified, because the Sultan referred to the pact as an act of “Devils” and refused to honor the treaty until the fall of the empire in 1922. Nonetheless, Turks were not the only obstacle before the implementation of the Treaty; the Western powers, particularly Britain and France that were the guardians of the treaty, who had concocted it in order to divide the Middle East and were the signatories of the Sykes-Picot Treaty, anticipated the downfall of the Sultanate. Therefore they took no serious steps forward to implement the treaty. They were hoping for more territorial gain in the region after the dissolution of Ottoman Empire.

The Treaty of Sykes-Picot was an agreement between the United Kingdom and France with consent of Tsarist Russia. In this treaty, Britain and France, expecting the imminent fall of the Ottoman Empire, defined respective realms of their influence and political-economic control in Western Asia. The treaty effectively divided the Arab, Armenian, and Kurdish provinces of the Ottoman Empire into areas of future British and French control/influence. The Sykes–Picot Agreement was concluded on May 16, 1916 and implemented after the WWI.

The lack of a genuine commitment on the part of the signatories of the of Treaty of Sèvres and the British and French secret plans laid out in Sykes-Picot agreement to divide the region, not only dashed the dream of independence for the Kurds, but also paved a way for the Lausanne Treaty which created some arbitrary and enfeebled states (i.e. not drawn to reflect true demography of the region and its peoples) in order to protect the interests of Western colonialism.

Treaty of Lausanne

THE TREATY OF SÈVRES WAS soon paralyzed and proven to be nothing but a sordid scheme of the British and French to buy time with the non-Turkish ethnicities in the Ottoman Empire by suggesting that they would redraw the map of the Middle East in the way in which every ethnicity could have a national state of their own. Although the Arabs benefited most from the terms of the Treaty of Sèvres by gaining status as nations after the demise of the Ottoman Empire, the Kurds were the main victims of the political maneuvering of the new Western colonial powers. The more France and Britain tightened their grip on the region, the less enthusiastic they became about the full implementation of the treaty to bring about future tranquility to the historically most “disputed” area in the world. They saw their interests in making the Treaty of Sèvres defunct, and surpassed it with a newly designed treaty, which gave them wider sphere of influence in the region. France and Britain along with Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, Yugoslavia, and Turkey were the signatories of the Lausanne Treaty signed on July 24, 1923 in Lausanne, Switzerland. To ensure that the Kurds would not be represented in the new treaty, British and French prevented General Sharif Pasha, the only Kurdish diplomat at large from representing the Kurdish interests at the Lausanne Treaty negotiations. He was kept in Syria and was not allowed to partake in crafting of the treaty. Therefore, the new treaty was signed without Kurdish concerns being addressed. The new treaty literally gave the ownership of the Northern part of Kurdistan to the newly established Turkey.

The Treaty of Lausanne was good for the Turks, but it was disastrous for the Kurds. It recognized Anatolia as the new Turkish republic with no mention of Kurdish national rights. The treaty was ratified by the Greek government on February 11, 1924, by the Turkish government on March 31, 1924, and by the governments of Great Britain, Italy, and Japan on August 6, 1924. It was registered in the League of Nations Treaty Series on September 5, 1924. It stated:

Turkey as the principal signatory of the treaty was expected to honor and implement the articles relevant to the non-Turk ethnicities. Further, the treaty in Article 38 clearly defined the Turkish responsibility towards non-Turk ethnicities that were “shackled and forced” to remain in the newly created Turkish republic. Article 38 averred, “The Turkish Government undertakes to assure full and complete protection of life and liberty to all inhabitants of Turkey without distinction of birth, nationality, language, race or religion…”

The future Turkish form of government should have been established on a Constitution that would honor the “life and liberty to all inhabitants of Turkey” and treat them equally before the law. Ironically, Turkey premised its foundation on a racist Constitution that recognized no ethnicities other than the Turkish ethnicity. In the new Turkish republic, the Turks became the “lord of the land” and other non-Turks were vassals of the Turks—exactly like the era when the American colonial power captured African blacks from Africa and forcefully took and enslaved them in America—the slave owners stripped the innocent Africans from their native identity and gave them their own European family names. Likewise, under the new racist Turkish Constitution, the identity of the Kurds was “transformed” to that of “Turks.”

Birth of the Turkish State

ACCORDINGLY, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE newly established Turkish republic should have been based on the “complete protection” provided by the terms of the treaty for “life and liberty to all inhabitants of Turkey without distinction of birth, nationality, language, race, or religion.” But, when on October 29, 1923, the new Turkish republic was officially proclaimed with Mustafa Kamal Ataturk being its first president, before long, Mr. Ataturk and his government categorically disregarded the concept of equality of all inhabitants in the newly born nation.

Turkish authorities under Mr. Ataturk then disregarded their prior commitment to honor the Lausanne Treaty and adopted what is best described as a racist Constitution, in that it referred to all citizens of Turkey as “Turks.” In Article 69, the Constitution of the 1924, stated, “All Turks [not citizens of Turkey] are equal before the law and are obliged to respect the law. All privileges of whatever description claimed by groups, classes, families, and individuals are abolished and forbidden.” Sadly enough, in this portion of Article 69, it appears that in the language of this clause, was used by the majority culture (Turks) to deny the identity of other ethnicities (as ‘privilege’) or to contradict “the complete protection of life and liberty to all inhabitants of Turkey without distinction of birth, nationality, language, race…” of the Lausanne Treaty. The clause “without distinction of birth, nationality, language, race” of the Lausanne Treaty implied that ethnic group identity would be safeguarded. In reality, except for the Turkish identity, the identities of other non-Turkish ethnicities were constitutionally liquidated.

During his behind-the-curtain maneuver with the allied nations to make the Treaty of Sèvres futile, Mr. Ataturk visited Kurdistan, met with Kurdish leaders, and promised to respect their national rights after the Turkish Balkan War was over. He promised them their rights in return for their support of the Turks during the war. The Kurds fulfilled their commitment, but after Turkey’s victory in the Balkan War, Mr. Ataturk not only did not keep his promise, but also adopted a policy of physical destruction and cultural annihilation vis-à-vis the Kurds. Months after the adoption of the unbalanced and biased Constitution in 1924, Ataturk’s government unleashed its brutal and bloody campaign against the Kurds. In 1925, they suppressed the Kurdish national movement led by Sheikh Sa’eed Pîran—an armed movement to secure the national rights for the Kurds, the same rights which Mr. Ataturk fought for in order to establish a new Turkish national identity.

Ataturk’s forces in the North of Kurdistan (Turkish occupied Kurdistan) massacred thousands of defenseless Kurds including women, children, and elderly. Additionally, they banned the words “Kurd and Kurdistan” and referred to the Kurds as the “Mountainous Turks,” and Kurdistan as “East and South East of Turkey.” Speaking Kurdish in public was considered as an insult to the Turkish “honor" and punishable by imprisonment. Later, other national movements including the Xoyî Bûn led by General Ihsan Nuri Pasha in 1931, and the Dersim uprising led by Sayid Reza in 1937 were brutally put down.

On October 20, 1927, in Ankara, in his speech to the Turkish youth, Mr. Mustafa Kamal Ataturk stated, “Turkish Youth, Your first duty is to preserve and to defend Turkish Independence and the Turkish Republic forever.” Further, on October 29, 1933, on the tenth anniversary of the republic, Mr. Ataturk promulgated, “Happy is he who says ‘I am a Turk.’” Such a statement by Ataturk as the head of state can only define him as a person of a deeply chauvinistic view and who had no regard for human dignity beyond Turkish identity.

Ataturk’s racist school of thought continued its influence among the Turkish nationalists, and consequently plagued the new republic in a recurring cycle of fear, distrust, and hate. Its impact became more patent after the military Coup D’état and the subsequent adaptation of the new Constitution in 1961. In Section Four: Political Rights and Duties, I. Citizenship in Article 54, the Constitution proclaimed, “Every individual who is bound to the Turkish State by ties of citizenship is a Turk.”

Such an amendment in the Constitution literally was the “constitutional genocide” against all the non-Turks in Turkey, particularly the Kurds who are the second largest ethnic nation after the Turks and who had been struggling for decades to create a better environment in which their national identity was recognized and respected. Predictably enough, the new Constitution brought more misery to the Kurds—persecution, imprisonment, torture, and oppression of the Kurds continued. Every measure of uncivilized forcible means was implemented in Kurdistan-Turkey. The Kurds were further driven deep into a more economic and cultural destitution. The Turkification policy through assimilation and physical destruction in Kurdistan was aggressively implemented.

Moreover, in another military Coup D’état in the 1982, Turkey remained as a country under Turkish supremacy and mono-Turkish culture over all the other non-Turkish inhabitants. The new Constitution in Chapter Four, I. Turkish Citizenship,www.ekurd.netArticle 66 (as amended on October 17, 2001), states “Everyone bound to the Turkish state through the bond of citizenship is a Turk.” The only difference between this piece of the Constitution and the piece of the Constitution of 1961 is the word “ties,” changed to “bond.” The chauvinistic school of thought remained unchanged. According to such a xenophobic Constitution, for example, if an American citizen marries a Turkish citizen and later obtains Turkish citizenship he or she becomes a “Turk” and “not a citizen of Turkey.”

This racist Constitution continued to teach hate and cynicism to the Turks that they are the masters of the country and all the other non-Turks are inferior to them. Consequently, such a discriminatory teaching has always been a huge obstacle before the greater majority of the Turks to realize that Turkey is not a homogeneous society, but rather it is a “mosaic” of diverse ethnic and linguistic groups with two major ethnicities, Turks and Kurds also including Armenians, Arabs, Laz, Dönme, Greeks, and Jews.
Although, Turks might not be aware of its negative impact, they are the main victims of such a myopic teaching under the Turkish Constitution. This Constitution has prevented them from realizing the truth about Turkey and restrained them from getting to know other non-Turks who have different nationality and cultural backgrounds. Therefore, as long as Turkish legal sources and political mindset stem from such a bigoted Constitution, Turks will never be able to transform Turkey into a tranquil and prosperous society that looks forward to a brighter future rather than living in the fearful past unless they rid themselves of and leave behind the cycle of hate, and establish internal trust and genuinely believe in the equality of all races/ethnicities.




References

-http://kurdistantribune.com/2011/kurdistan-viable-state/
-www.eKurd.com
-AK Party Website: http://eng.akparti.org.tr/index.html
-Ataturk Web. THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PKK. http://pkk.ataturk.org/capture.shtml
-Ataturk quotes and speeches. All About Turkey. (Website). http://www.allaboutturkey.com/ata_speech.htm#2
-Brief History of Republic of Turkey. http://www.bartleby.com/65/tu/Turkey.html-- http://www.umich.edu/~turkish/links/reptr_brhist.html) Retrieved on May 29, 2011
-Holly Quran: Chapter 49, Verse 13.
-Islam: Empire of faith. Documentary film.
-Islam & Racism. (2001). http://www.inter-islam.org/Prohibiti...CISM.htm#views
-Jailing Kurdish Children to Undermine Dissent
By Daan Bauwens “http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49558” Inter Press Service News Agency: http://www.ipsnews.net/index.asp--July 27, 2011.
-KURDISTAN COMMENTARY. Thousands march for Kurdish language rights. 22 February 2011 by KB. http://kurdistancommentary.wordpress...nguage-rights/
-Mongabay.com. http://www.mongabay.com/reference/co...y/SOCIETY.html retrieved on May 30, 2011.
-Nichole Sobecki. (2009). Turkey's forbidden tongue. Global Post website: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/t...rbidden-tongue. March 5, 2009.
-Per Fagereng. (1999). The Capture of Abdullah Ocalan: Having their way with the Kurds. http://wafreepress.org/39/capture.html
-Serbesti Website: SOCIETY FOR THREATENED PEOPLES. Göttingen, June 14, 2011 http://www.serbesti.net/showentry.php?sNo=25680
-The Standard for fairness and Justice.(2011). http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/speci...llah%20Ocalane.
-TRT 6 website: http://www.odyovi.com/turkey/ankara/...sh-tv-trt-6-tv
-Turkish Constitution of 1924.
-Turkish Constitution of 1961.
-Turkish Constitution of 1982.

[jjmuneer]

Not only is Kurdistan a viable state, it in my opinion will be the and is the only state on conscience.

[alan131210]

if i was Barzani i will g on tv and declare the state right away what we got to lose !! we will be landlocked ? lol we already are and with 4 international airports we will do fine , and we can compromise on kirkuk oil with baghdad to use Basra port . there is a new motor way under construction from basra - kirkuk by the way .

[talsor]

I do not mean to be critical here , but I WISH our poeple will stop acting like a victims to gain their independence . We are a nation of 30-40 million people and we have to do everything we can to get the best deal possible if we are to seperate from these countries . Years of injustice ,theft of our resources , genocide , cultural gagging will never go un answered and these countries will have to pay for that heavily . Declaring indepndent in southren Kurdistan will not change anything , I mean as it is we are virtually indepnedent and making the best of the sitution in Iraq which is essential to our future . Our focus right now should be in the north which will be the turning point in our struggle , because dictators in Iran and syria will not last for long in the new world and sooner or later these regimes will fall like the rest .

As sure as i'm that the sun will rise tomorrow there will be a kurdish state , so please try to enjoy the process before reaching the goal .

[jjmuneer]

I do not mean to be critical here , but I WISH our poeple will stop acting like a victims to gain their independence . We are a nation of 30-40 million people and we have to do everything we can to get the best deal possible if we are to seperate from these countries . Years of injustice ,theft of our resources , genocide , cultural gagging will never go un answered and these countries will have to pay for that heavily . Declaring indepndent in southren Kurdistan will not change anything , I mean as it is we are virtually indepnedent and making the best of the sitution in Iraq which is essential to our future . Our focus right now should be in the north which will be the turning point in our struggle , because dictators in Iran and syria will not last for long in the new world and sooner or later these regimes will fall like the rest .

As sure as i'm that the sun will rise tomorrow there will be a kurdish state , so please try to enjoy the process before reaching the goal .

Yopur right, because whenever you go to the nice big international courts, nothing happens. Just look at the poor Armenians.

[talsor]

I do not mean to be critical here , but I WISH our poeple will stop acting like a victims to gain their independence . We are a nation of 30-40 million people and we have to do everything we can to get the best deal possible if we are to seperate from these countries . Years of injustice ,theft of our resources , genocide , cultural gagging will never go un answered and these countries will have to pay for that heavily . Declaring indepndent in southren Kurdistan will not change anything , I mean as it is we are virtually indepnedent and making the best of the sitution in Iraq which is essential to our future . Our focus right now should be in the north which will be the turning point in our struggle , because dictators in Iran and syria will not last for long in the new world and sooner or later these regimes will fall like the rest .

As sure as i'm that the sun will rise tomorrow there will be a kurdish state , so please try to enjoy the process before reaching the goal .

Yopur right, because whenever you go to the nice big international courts, nothing happens. Just look at the poor Armenians.

exactly , who cares about international condemnation? . If Kurdistan is ever to be liberated , it will be on our hand and I believe we can and we will .Just a matter of time .

[Azamat]

Yopur right, because whenever you go to the nice big international courts, nothing happens. Just look at the poor Armenians.

These 'poor Armenians' are out there to get our ancestral land. Beware.

[jjmuneer]

Yopur right, because whenever you go to the nice big international courts, nothing happens. Just look at the poor Armenians.

These 'poor Armenians' are out there to get our ancestral land. Beware.

I wouldn't say that, they only want north eastern anatolia back. I think thats just Turkish propaganda trying to cause a hastle.

[alan131210]

which part is that ? armenia is a country and they have no right to get back stolen parts of turkey what chance kurds have in south kurdistan so i dont know why turks are so narrow minded . plus if these areas are inhabitied by non-turks why they want them ti be in there borders since they also deprive them of there rights language and culture !!! are ever turks going to be democratic humans !!