Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Should the Kurds be given independence?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 89101112>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
DayI View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2408 		  Quote DayI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Should the Kurds be given independence?
    Posted: 13-Feb-2007 at 17:18
Originally posted by Cent

慏u know what I mean.

No we dont, comparing Turkey with "kurdistan" or Iran with "kurdistan" isnt the same.


Bu m覺nt覺ka'n覺n Day覺's覺
[IMG">http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg">
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Feb-2007 at 18:02
 
Originally posted by Zaitsev

Originally posted by gcle2003

 
Originally posted by Zaitsev

They could not fund themselves, nor do they have any right to that oil which is the property of what was the state of Iraq.
So the central Asian republics don't have any right to their oil because it really belongs to the Tsar? Or the Soviet Union? Or whom?
 
Why doesn't the Kurdish oil still belong to the Ottoman empire? Or Assyria?
 
The state of Iraq was a totally artificial creation of the British, who wanted to reward their chief ally in the region with a kingdom. Hardly a ground for true legitimacy.


I'll quote gcle because he's taken fewer words to say it, but here's the situation. Iraq exists now.
Hah! Not as a unified entity it doesn't.
 
 
Iran exists now. Turkey exists now. There are no pressing social reasons that call for the break up of these countries, although Iraq may not classify as a country at this stage, it is still an identifiable region that is part of the regional politics.
What do you mean by an 'identifiable region'? The Indian sub-continent is an identifiable region. So is sub-Saharan Africa.
 
 
Kurdistan does not exist as a separate entity. You are effectively arguing that Kurdistan should be create "because we can".
No I'm not. I'm saying it should be created because any national group has a right to independence.
 
The logic of your argument is that at any point in time things should always be left as they are.
 
 Where does one draw the line? After Kurdistan is made, what if the Iranian Kurds want independence? Then what if each tribe wants independence? What you are suggesting is called "political anarchy".
 
No it's not. It's called self-determination, adopted as a principle by the League of Nations from the outset, and carried on by the United Nations.
 
And don't ask me generalised 'what ifs'. Give me specific examples and I'll give you what I think. But a universal general rule is not possible.
 
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 13-Feb-2007 at 18:03
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792 		  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Feb-2007 at 18:21
One thing the Kurdish hyper-nationalists try to do is try to portray the situation of Kurds in Iran, Iraq and Turkey as the same when in fact they are and have been nothing alike.
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613 		  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Feb-2007 at 20:27

The general question "Should the Kurds be given independence?" applies to all kurds on the ethical level. Practically each country effected should be treated differently. Kurdish rights can be pursued on many levels, in many ways and should be flexible/sophisticated enough to adapt to the appropiate approach given the 'when and where' the question arises.

i am more black and white over Iraq, this is a failed artificial state with clear ethnic lines. The question and timing is very much relevant to the indepedance approach. Syria is another country where i tend to be partial towards the clean cut.
 
 Turkey is not a failed state, rather its very strong so the question of kurdish rights should fit within the context of the turkish state. Most importantly fighting with turkey only endangers the rest who are able to be independant. So pursing rights within turkey and being open to compromise over the hard demands, is much more realistic and positive to the general regional question. The turks wont stop soften their appraoch while they are being shot at. Infact it helps their military retain control over the south east, look to kurdish Iraq and threatens/inhibits any tangible progress.
 
 Iran has a mix of kurdish groups with varying degrees of loyalty, so the issue isnt a simple 'kurd vs iranian'. Not being a blanket ethnic 'kurdish' issue this is more a provincial level of rights, so the approach can be taken on the relationship between that level of government and Tehran. I can only see the relative small 'kordistan' wanting out.
 
 


Edited by Leonidas - 13-Feb-2007 at 20:29
Back to Top
Cent View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 20-Jun-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1013 		  Quote Cent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 04:23
"I can only see the relative small 'kordistan' wanting out."
 
And parts of West Azarbaijan.
They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this.
Abdul Rahman Qassemlou
Back to Top
TheDiplomat View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1988 		  Quote TheDiplomat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 05:36
Gclc2003, one historical point you should bear in mind with regards to this question, the newly established Turkish Republic  agreed to give up her rights on  Mosul province to a one single Iraq in 1926 not to a  divided Mesopotamia.
ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever!

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 06:13
Originally posted by TheDiplomat

Gclc2003, one historical point you should bear in mind with regards to this question, the newly established Turkish Republic  agreed to give up her rights on  Mosul province to a one single Iraq in 1926 not to a  divided Mesopotamia.
 
What choice did it have?
 
Japan 'agreed' to give up Taiwan (Formosa) to the Republic of China. What has that to do with whether Taiwan now should or should not be independent of the People's Republic of China?


Edited by gcle2003 - 14-Feb-2007 at 06:16
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 07:31
Originally posted by gcle2003

No it's not. It's called self-determination, adopted as a principle by the League of Nations from the outset, and carried on by the United Nations.
 
And don't ask me generalised 'what ifs'. Give me specific examples and I'll give you what I think. But a universal general rule is not possible.


So it depends on which ethnic group wants independence? It's alright for the Kurds, but perhaps not those Aborginals. They don't have a right to self governance. You are arguing for their independence on moral and ethical grounds, you can't pick and choose which ethnic groups can have independence.
Back to Top
TheDiplomat View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1988 		  Quote TheDiplomat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 07:38
Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by TheDiplomat

Gclc2003, one historical point you should bear in mind with regards to this question, the newly established Turkish Republic  agreed to give up her rights on  Mosul province to a one single Iraq in 1926 not to a  divided Mesopotamia.
 
What choice did it have?
 
Japan 'agreed' to give up Taiwan (Formosa) to the Republic of China. What has that to do with whether Taiwan now should or should not be independent of the People's Republic of China?

Common mistake,sir. Comparing apples to oranges...Mosul was an Ottoman province for centuries whereas Japanese rule in Taiwan lasted between 1895 and 1945...just 50 years... Not even one lifespan! I wonder how you came to the conlusion that you could compare both. Added to this fact are the facts of different circumstances.

Mosul province was accepted within national borders already at the beginning of 20s.. It was casus belli between The newly established republic and England. The army was ready for the war. But after the creation of Iraq, and Ataturk's belief that it would  serve better for Turkey's future, we decided to give up Mosul and let one single, united Iraq to have it. 

 
In my opinion, noone can not say'' oh let everyone has a free independent state of his own''  by ignoring international law, historical accumulation,geopolitics.. 
ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever!

Back to Top
Yiannis View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2329 		  Quote Yiannis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 08:27
Originally posted by TheDiplomat

Ataturk's belief that it would  serve better for Turkey's future, we decided to give up Mosul and let one single, united Iraq to have it. 
 
 
So now that this prerequisite was not met, you can ask to have it back! problem solved Tongue
 
 
 
 
 
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 09:48
 
Originally posted by TheDiplomat

Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by TheDiplomat

Gclc2003, one historical point you should bear in mind with regards to this question, the newly established Turkish Republic  agreed to give up her rights on  Mosul province to a one single Iraq in 1926 not to a  divided Mesopotamia.
 
What choice did it have?
 
Japan 'agreed' to give up Taiwan (Formosa) to the Republic of China. What has that to do with whether Taiwan now should or should not be independent of the People's Republic of China?

Common mistake,sir. Comparing apples to oranges...Mosul was an Ottoman province for centuries whereas Japanese rule in Taiwan lasted between 1895 and 1945...just 50 years... Not even one lifespan! I wonder how you came to the conlusion that you could compare both.

I'm aware of the difference in length of tenure. I don't see how that makes any difference.
 
 
Added to this fact are the facts of different circumstances.

Mosul province was accepted within national borders already at the beginning of 20s.. It was casus belli between The newly established republic and England. The army was ready for the war. But after the creation of Iraq, and Ataturk's belief that it would  serve better for Turkey's future, we decided to give up Mosul and let one single, united Iraq to have it. 

The similarity is that Japan in 1945 and Turkey had no choice. The British mandate over Mesopotamia (and other places) was granted by the League of Nations after the defeat and breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The boundaries of Turkey itself were determined by the League of Nations, as one of the residual pieces .
 
The idea that Turkey could have done anything to stop the inclusion of Mosul in Iraq is a pipe dream.
 
In my opinion, noone can not say'' oh let everyone has a free independent state of his own''  by ignoring international law, historical accumulation,geopolitics.. 
That would be a silly thing to say anyway.
 
Back to Top
TheDiplomat View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1988 		  Quote TheDiplomat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 10:09
Originally posted by gcle2003

 
 
The similarity is that Japan in 1945 and Turkey had no choice. The British mandate over Mesopotamia (and other places) was granted by the League of Nations after the defeat and breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The boundaries of Turkey itself were determined by the League of Nations, as one of the residual pieces .
 
The idea that Turkey could have done anything to stop the inclusion of Mosul in Iraq is a pipe dream.
 
 
Well, Turkey became a member of The League of Nations in the 30s, so how did she accept the autroity of this international foundation in 1926  that she is not a party, is a question that you should keep your mind busy.
 
The case of Mosul was not brought to a settlement at Lusanne Peace Conference. Many people cried for the war. The English influence in The League of Nations was very higly visible. But even tough we let The League decide the case. Because again it was about to given to ONE SINGLE, UNIFIED IRAQ not to Kurdistan or Arabistan...etc
 
The very another  difference of Japans case is that Japan had UNCONDITIONALLY SURRENDERED in the Second World War, whereas Turkey was the victorious side in the national war of independence. Ofcourse Turkey had another choices..
 
I am not expert on Taiwan history..But i know that Japan ruled there for 50 years.. Based on this information, I still firmly believe that comparing 50 years of Japanese Taiwan and centuries of Ottoman Mosul is ridiculous. Time has always made difference in the course of events. It is time that moved history in this sense
 
 
 
ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever!

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 10:49
 
Originally posted by TheDiplomat

Originally posted by gcle2003

 
 
The similarity is that Japan in 1945 and Turkey had no choice. The British mandate over Mesopotamia (and other places) was granted by the League of Nations after the defeat and breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The boundaries of Turkey itself were determined by the League of Nations, as one of the residual pieces .
 
The idea that Turkey could have done anything to stop the inclusion of Mosul in Iraq is a pipe dream.
 
Well, Turkey became a member of The League of Nations in the 30s, so how did she accept the autroity of this international foundation in 1926  that she is not a party, is a question that you should keep your mind busy.
Turkey is not the Ottoman Empire. The Empire was split up because it was defeated in war. (see more below).
 
The case of Mosul was not brought to a settlement at Lusanne Peace Conference. Many people cried for the war. The English influence in The League of Nations was very higly visible. But even tough we let The League decide the case. Because again it was about to given to ONE SINGLE, UNIFIED IRAQ not to Kurdistan or Arabistan...etc
The Treaty provided:
"The frontier between Turkey and Iraq shall be laid down in friendly arrangement to be concluded between Turkey and Great Britain within nine months.

In the event of no agreement being reached between the two Governments within the time mentioned, the dispute shall be referred to the Council of the League of Nations."

 
Iraq had ALREADY been set up as a British mandate BEFORE the Lausanne treaty. As the quotation makes clear, all that was under debate here were the details of where exactly the boundaries should lie (this is even more obvious taken in the context of the surrounding articles, which are all about details of boundaries.)
 
But the province as a whole had been taken out of Turkish or Ottoman control long before.
 
 
The very another  difference of Japans case is that Japan had UNCONDITIONALLY SURRENDERED in the Second World War, whereas Turkey was the victorious side in the national war of independence. Of course Turkey had another choices..
Seriously like what? Yes Turkey had beaten the Greeks, but it was in no position to take on any of the great powers.
I am not expert on Taiwan history..But i know that Japan ruled there for 50 years.. Based on this information, I still firmly believe that comparing 50 years of Japanese Taiwan and centuries of Ottoman Mosul is ridiculous. Time has always made difference in the course of events. It is time that moved history in this sense
If Turks had settled the area and lived there for centuries it might have made a difference. But neither Japan nor Turkey had settled the areas involved - merely ruled over them. Look how long England had ruled over Ireland - did that mean they had the right to rule over the Irish for ever? 
 
The Ottoman Empire has gone. What happens to its former provinces is no business of Turkey's, any more than it is Austria's business what happens in Croatia or Britain's what happens in Ireland.


Edited by gcle2003 - 14-Feb-2007 at 10:52
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800 		  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 15:35
Gcle
If Turks had settled the area and lived there for centuries it might have made a difference. But neither Japan nor Turkey had settled the areas involved - merely ruled over them. Look how long England had ruled over Ireland - did that mean they had the right to rule over the Irish for ever? 
 
Not a very good comparison.
 
Kurds and Turks entered Anatolia together, it's not like Kurds were there living happily in their own states untill one day the Turks popped along and ruined the Kurds rule.
 
The area's claimed by Kurds in Turkey have been inhabitted by Turks for just as long.
 
The problem that Iran, Turkey and Syria has is not a Kurdish state but Pan-Kurdism.
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Cent View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 20-Jun-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1013 		  Quote Cent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 16:13
Dude, we aren't claiming Anatolia. Kurds have been living in the mountain areas in south east for thousands of years. Long before Turks came.
 
And I'm not talking about Anatolia. I do not care about Anatolia. But do claim that Turks have lived in those mountains (south east) before Kurds is ignorant. 
 
 


Edited by Cent - 14-Feb-2007 at 16:14
They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this.
Abdul Rahman Qassemlou
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800 		  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 18:14
No it's not ignorant at all Cent. Kurds lived in the Zagros area for thousands of years with relative independance or semi-independance your correct.
 
However, they were not in Anatolia and did not have freedom to openly migrate untill the Turks came, defeated the Byzantines at Malazgirit hence Turkish and Kurdish tribes flooded into the area. Kurds preferred the mountainess area while Turks preferred flatter lands. Although this wasn't always the case, some Kurds preferred flatter lands some Turks mountainess lands.
 
The point is, the claim that Kurds lived in what is today Turkey for 7000 years while Turks just showed up 1000 years ago and stole the Kurds land is historically inaccurate and a total fallacy.
 
I'd like to point out untill 80 years ago there was no closer two groups than Turks and Kurds Wink
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613 		  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 18:27
Right or wrong your posts are completly irrelvent bulldog; diplomat and GCLE are talking about north Iraq not anadolia, so lets not try to swing this debate into confusion
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800 		  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 18:58
Ofcourse its related, as I said, Iran, Turkey and Syria have more a problem with Pan-Kurdism than a Kurdish state.
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 05:27
Originally posted by Bulldog

Gcle
If Turks had settled the area and lived there for centuries it might have made a difference. But neither Japan nor Turkey had settled the areas involved - merely ruled over them. Look how long England had ruled over Ireland - did that mean they had the right to rule over the Irish for ever? 
 
Not a very good comparison.
 
Kurds and Turks entered Anatolia together, it's not like Kurds were there living happily in their own states untill one day the Turks popped along and ruined the Kurds rule.
 
The area's claimed by Kurds in Turkey have been inhabitted by Turks for just as long.
 
The problem that Iran, Turkey and Syria has is not a Kurdish state but Pan-Kurdism.
 
The problem that the Turkish commentators seem to have is that they are only concerned with Turkey.
 
The suggested Kurdish state is the former Ottoman province of Mosul, whichwas not settled by Turks, not in significant numbers anyway.
 
Back to Top
TheDiplomat View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1988 		  Quote TheDiplomat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 06:17
Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by Bulldog

Gcle
If Turks had settled the area and lived there for centuries it might have made a difference. But neither Japan nor Turkey had settled the areas involved - merely ruled over them. Look how long England had ruled over Ireland - did that mean they had the right to rule over the Irish for ever? 
 
Not a very good comparison.
 
Kurds and Turks entered Anatolia together, it's not like Kurds were there living happily in their own states untill one day the Turks popped along and ruined the Kurds rule.
 
The area's claimed by Kurds in Turkey have been inhabitted by Turks for just as long.
 
The problem that Iran, Turkey and Syria has is not a Kurdish state but Pan-Kurdism.
 
The problem that the Turkish commentators seem to have is that they are only concerned with Turkey.
 
The suggested Kurdish state is the former Ottoman province of Mosul, whichwas not settled by Turks, not in significant numbers anyway.
 
 
But what about the future of this suggested Kurdish state?
 
Will it say ''Ah, I got my independence, I am done with now, I will stay in peace for ever'' and bring stability into region, or will its existance  encourage, if not directly push, its ''blood-brothers'' all around the region for unification of these so-called lands, expansion, greater autonomy...etc and hence cause more fights and eventually more misery?
 
I am not syaing this because I am Turk, but anyone with an intermediate level of geopolitics and history will argue that the latter is more likely to occur.
ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever!

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 89101112>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.