Kurds – A People Without A State Essay, Research Paper

Introduction

Of all the ethnic groups in the world, the Kurds are one of the

largest that has no state to call their own. According to historian

William Westermann, “The Kurds can present a better claim to race

purity…than any people which now inhabits Europe.” (Bonner, p. 63,

1992) Over the past hundred years, the desire for an independent

Kurdish state has created conflicts mainly with the Turkish and Iraqi

populations in the areas where most of the Kurds live. This conflict

has important geographical implications as well. The history of the

Kurdish nation, the causes for these conflicts, and an analysis of the

situation will be discussed in this paper.

History of the Kurds

The Kurds are a Sunni Muslim people living primarily in Turkey,

Iraq, and Iran. The 25 million Kurds have a distinct culture that is

not at all like their Turkish, Persian, and Arabic neighbors

(Hitchens, p. 36, 1992). It is this cultural difference between the

groups that automatically creates the potential for conflict. Of the

25 million Kurds, approximately 10 million live in Turkey, four

million in Iraq, five million in Iran, and a million in Syria, with

the rest scattered throughout the rest of the world (Bonner, p. 46,

1992). The Kurds also have had a long history of conflict with these

other ethnic groups in the Middle East, which we will now look at.

The history of Kurds in the area actually began during ancient times.

However, the desire for a Kurdish homeland did not begin until the

early 1900?s, around the time of World War I. In his Fourteen Points,

President Woodrow Wilson promised the Kurds a sovereign state

(Hitchens, p. 54, 1992). The formation of a Kurdish state was supposed

to have been accomplished through the Treaty of Sevres in 1920 which

said that the Kurds could have an independent state if they wanted one

(Bonner, p. 46, 1992). With the formation of Turkey in 1923, Kemal

Ataturk, the new Turkish President, threw out the treaty and denied

the Kurds their own state. This was the beginning of the

Turkish-Kurdish conflict. At about this same time, the Kurds attempted

to establish a semi-independent state, and actually succeeded in

forming the Kingdom of Kurdistan, which lasted from 1922-1924; later,

in 1946, some of the Kurds established the Mahabad Republic, which

lasted for only one year (Prince, p. 17, 1993). In 1924, Turkey even

passed a law banning the use of the Kurdish language in public places.

Another group of people to consider is the Kurds living in Iraq. Major

conflict between the Kurds and Iraqis did not really begin until 1961,

when a war broke out that lasted until 1970. Around this time, Saddam

Hussein came to power in Iraq. In 1975, Hussein adopted a policy of

eradicating the Kurds from his country. Over the next fifteen years,

the Iraqi army bombed Kurdish villages, and poisoned the Kurds with

cyanide and mustard gas (Hitchens, p. 46, 1992). It is estimated that

during the 1980?s, Iraqis destroyed some 5000 Kurdish villages

(Prince, p. 22, 1993). From this point, we move into the recent

history and current state of these conflicts between the Kurds and the

Turks, and the Kurds against the Iraqis.

Causes for Conflict

The reasons for these conflicts have great relevance to

geography. The areas of geography relating to these specific conflicts

are a historical claim to territory on the part of the Kurds, cultural

geography, economic geography, and political geography. These four

areas of geography can best explain the reasons for these Kurdish

conflicts. First, the Kurds have a valid historical claim to

territory. They have lived in the area for over 2000 years. For this

reason, they desire the establishment of a Kurdish homeland. Iraqis

and Turks, while living in the area for a long period of time, cannot

make a historical claim to that same area. The conflict arises,

however, because the area happens to lie within the borders of Iraq

and Turkey. Even though the Kurds claim is valid, the Turks and Iraqis

have chosen to ignore it and have tried to wipe out the Kurds.

Second, and probably most important, is that this conflict involves

cultural geography. The Kurds are ethnically and culturally different

from both the Turks and the Iraqis. They speak a different language,

and while all three groups are Muslim, they all practice different

forms. The Kurds have used this cultural difference as a reason to

establish a homeland. However, the Turks and Iraqis look at the

contrast in ethnicity in a much different sense. The government of

Turkey viewed any religious or ethnic identity that was not their own

to be a threat to the state (”Time to Talk Turkey”, p. 9, 1995).

Saddam Hussein believed that the Kurds were “in the way” in Iraq and

he perceived them as a threat to “the glory of the Arabs” (Hitchens,

p. 46, 1992). For this reason, he carried out his mass genocide of the

Kurds in his country. A third factor in these conflicts is economic

geography. The areas of Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syria that the Kurds

live in is called Kurdistan, shown on the map “Confrontation in

Kurdistan” (Hitchens, 1992, p.37, map). Kurdistan is a strategically

important area for both Turkey and Iraq because it contains important

oil and water resources which they cannot afford to lose (Hitchens, p.

49, 1992). Also, there has been no significant economic activity in

the region, due to the trade embargo against Iraq that has been in

place since 1991 (Prince, p. 22, 1993). Still, an independent Kurdish

state would be economically viable and would no longer have an embargo

placed against it.

A final cause of the conflict is political geography. The Turks

and Iraqis do not wish to lose their control over Kurdistan, and have

resorted to various measures such as the attacks previously described.

The Kurds, on the other hand, have political problems of their own.

There is a sharp difference of opinion between the two main Kurdish

political parties, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), and the

Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) (Hitchens, p. 36, 1992). The

parties are at odds about how to resolve the conflicts in which their

people are involved. Until this internal conflict among the Kurds is

solved, it will be difficult for them to deal with the Turks and

Iraqis.

Recent History and the Current Situation

In 1991, after the defeat of his country in the Persian Gulf

War, Saddam Hussein had the Iraqi army attack the Kurds again. As a

result, the United States and its allies launched Operation Provide

Comfort in April 1991 that created a safe haven for the Kurds in Iraqi

Kurdistan. Eventually, the Kurds were able to secure a small measure

of autonomy in Kurdistan and on May 19, 1992, the Kurds held their

first free elections in Iraq (Prince, p. 17, 1992). The Kurds had

sovereignty in part of Kurdistan, called Free Kurdistan, but not to

the point of being recognized as an independent state. Seeing how the

Kurds in Iraq were able to hold elections, the Turks got scared and

banned the People?s Labor Party, a legal Kurdish party in Turkey, from

the Turkish Parliament (Marcus, p. 9, 1994).

In Turkey, a civil war between the Kurds and Turks has been

going on for the last ten years; approximately 15,000 people have been

killed so far (”Time to Talk Turkey, p. 9, 1995). The Turks launched

an invasion they called Operation Steel against the Kurds in March

1995, sending 35,000 troops against them, but the plan backfired, as

only 158 Kurdish rebels were killed in the first week (Possant, Doxey,

& Borrus, p. 57, 1995). To sum up the Turks attitude toward the Kurds,

Tansu Ciller, the Turkish prime minister, said, “Turkey has no Kurdish

problem, only a terrorist problem” (Marcus, p. 9, 1994).

As far as the United States is concerned, Kurdistan probably

should not exist. During Operation Provide Comfort, the U.S. helped

out the Kurds in Iraq, but did nothing to help the Kurds in Turkey.

The reason for this is that Turkey is a NATO ally, while Iraq is one

of the U.S.?s worst enemies (Marcus, p. 9, 1994) By helping out the

Kurds, the U.S. would be siding with enemies of the Turks, which could

create problems that the U.S. government would rather not deal with.

This type of situation does not exist in Iraq, however, since the U.S.

is not on friendly terms with Hussein?s regime.

There are two main views on how to deal with the conflicts. The

KDP, led by Masoud Baranzi, seeks limited political autonomy within

Iraq (Hitchens, p. 36, 1992). Interestingly, many Kurds would accept

being a state of Iraq, holding some autonomy, provided that Hussein

was removed from power, a democracy was installed, and the Kurds were

treated as equals (Bonner, p. 65, 1992). This means that some of the

Kurds do not believe it is absolutely necessary that they have their

own state, only that they are recognized as equals by the Iraqi

government. On the other hand, Jalal Talabania?s PUK says that the

Kurds should hold out for more political concessions from Iraq

(Hitchens, p. 36, 1992). It is possible that they would try to use

guerrilla warfare tactics to frighten the Iraqi army into meeting its

demands.

Analysis: Looking Ahead to the Future

Looking at the current state of the conflict, the end does not

seem to be near. On one hand, the Kurds have been struggling to gain

their independence for a number of years, and even though they have

been locked in a ten year guerrilla war with the Turks, have come too

far to stop fighting and accept the harsh treatment they have received

from the Turks and Iraqis. Even though Turkey has lost a large number

of troops dealing with the perceived Kurdish “menace”, they do have

the support of the U.S., and that in itself seems to be a good enough

reason to keep the war going.

As for the situation in Iraq, the situation is a bit more

complicated. The plan of KDP seems like a plausible solution.

However, the plan is not likely to succeed until Hussein dies or is

forced out of power. The Iraqis also do not seem very willing to give

up their territory to the Kurds. The plan of the PUK has a small

chance to work, assuming that guerrilla tactics would scare the Iraqi

government. By simply holding out, the Kurds would gain nothing,

because the Iraqis are not threatened by the Kurds per se. However, by

attacking the Iraqis, the Kurds run the risk of a counterattack which

they probably could not effectively deal with. Basically, that would

make the situation for the Kurds even worse than before.

Conclusion

Without the support of a large powerful nation such as the U.S.,

the Kurds will probably never establish an independent Kurdish state.

The Kurds do not have enough military power to fight off the Turks and

Iraqis without help. The Iraqis and Turks would not be willing to give

up their economically important territory to people which they

perceive a “threat” to their way of life and will most likely continue

to fight the Kurds. The Kurds have no choice but to continue fighting

until either they or the Turks and Iraqis are defeated, as both groups

are unwilling to allow them to remain in their countries. The future

definitely looks bleak for the Kurds.