Tag Archives: Self-Determination

As Iraqi crisis haunts the Kurds, double standards in the principle of self-determination come to the fore

Leave a reply

“What is good for the goose is good for gander” – English Proverb

It is fast approaching 100 years since US President Woodrow Wilson issued his 14 points at the end of the First World War with the concept of self-determination the overriding principle that he imposed on the League of Nations and the Middle East.

Wilson stated in January 1918 that “The Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development”.

Wilson later warned that “Self-determination is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril….”

For imperial interests at the time, Kurdistan was the only major nation not to be granted statehood. The Treaty of Sèvres in 1920, which proposed a Kurdish state, was later annulled by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.

A secret deal between UK Foreign Minister Sir Mark Sykes and France Foreign Minister Francois Georges-Picot that divided the Middle East has somehow become unbreakable even if it lacked real socio-political or ethnic basis or mirrored realities on the ground.

Remarkably, close to a century later, the Kurds remain the largest ethnic group in the world without a state.

Self-determination is one of the key international charters and by which repression, imperialism and subjugation is eradicated and free will of nations is attained.

Arabs have fiercely campaigned and struggled for the establishment of Palestine and the 22nd Arab state in the Middle East that they see as a historic wrong, yet many oppose the establishment of a single Kurdish state.

The principle of self-determination

At the end of World War II, the ratification of the United Nations Charter in 1945 placed the right of self-determination into the framework of international law and diplomacy.

The United Nations Charter states that nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion or interference.

Chapter 1, article 1, part 2 clearly states that purpose of the UN Charter is “to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.”

Self-determination is also protected under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a right of “all peoples.”

The Iraqi struggle

With Iraq engulfed in yet more sectarian flames, the renewed Kurdish bid for independence is met with resistance, caution and obstacles. Ironically, while the ubiquitous talk has been of the Kurds breaking away from Iraq, thanks to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and the marginalisation and centralist policies of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, it is Iraq that is breaking away from the Kurds.

Yet the Kurds are been asked to put the brakes on any move towards self-determination and save Iraq and Maliki.

The Unite States helped mask some of the post Saddam Hussein realities by acting as the crutches to support an Iraq that was broken and could not stand on its own two feet.

Here is the problem, what good is a comprehensive constitution, democratic frameworks, concessions and promises if the end product is failed implementation, by-passed legislature, half-hearted unity and empty gestures?

Today Kurdistan has a fundamental and unmolested right to two clear options. Either a truly democratic, federal and balanced Iraq or outright independence. Since the first option has all but eroded, outright independence remains the only real option.

What do you need to be independent?

While other countries, some with populations numbering in the thousands and others gripped with immense poverty and a lack of infrastructure dot the global horizon, the Kurds are warned to tread carefully or that their time has not come.

Some claim that Kurdistan does not have the infrastructure or conditions for statehood but just how much infrastructure does Palestine or Kosovo have compared to the Kurds?

Kurdistan is washed with immense amounts of oil, with a booming economy, a vibrant population and all the trappings of any state. It is a key strategic hub of the Middle East and with the influence and standing to play a key part in the evolution of the Middle East.

Have the Kurds spilled countless blood, tears and tragedy to now return to centralist rule in Iraq or to have terms dictated upon them by other groups?

At the first seismic shifting of the Middle East after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the Kurds were sidelined and had to painfully endure decades of suffering for their chance to rewrite the wrongs of history. They can ill-afford to be passengers as the evolutionary trains darts past this time around.

Is Kosovo really a “Special Case”?

The ruling by the International Court of Justice in 2010, the first case of secession raised before the World Court, declared that Kosovo’s declaration of independence was in fact legal and did not contravene international law.

Key global powers in support of Kosovar rights have continuously pointed to the notion that Kosovo was a special case, that since Serbia’s brutal campaign had forfeited right to govern Kosovo by “breaching its responsibility to protect” its civilians under international law, the Kosovar’s were free to choose not to reside with their Serbian counterparts.

This paved the way to implement a roadmap orchestrated by United Nations envoy Martti Ahtisaari, which proposed a scheduled transition to independence.

By this virtue, after brutal campaigns of genocide, repression and even chemical bombings, Iraq has long “forfeited” any sovereign right over Kurdistan.

U.S. President George W. Bush deemed that “history will prove this to be a correct move to bring peace to the Balkans.” Whilst a UK government statement deemed the Kosovar move as the “most viable way forward”.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called the situation “a special case” for reasons such as “…Yugoslavia’s breakup, the history of ethnic cleansing and crimes against civilians in Kosovo, and the extended period of U.N. administration.”

However, whilst Albanians already have a country of their own (Albania), the Kurds have nothing. The struggle to establish a ‘Kosovar’ identity in the aftermath of statehood is well documented. At the time of independence, Kosovar’s had yet to build a distinctive national image with a lack of an official flag, security force and national anthem. After all, it was the greater Albanian flag that was ubiquitous on every corner of Pristina.

Bids for independence

South Sudan followed in the heels of Kosovo by declaring statehood in 2011 after a referendum (ironically, despite statements by Barrack Obama to the contrary, a referendum was never held in Kosovo).

Crimea broke away from Ukraine and was annexed by Russia within weeks in a hastily arranged referendum.

Not to mention Scotland’s independence referendum scheduled for September as they vote to break away from the United Kingdom or Catalonia’s bid to break away from Spain.

All the while, international community worry about what precedence is been set for the likes of Cyprus, Somaliland, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria.

Can the case of 40 million ethnic Kurds without a homeland be compared to relatively small breakaway regions whose ethnicities is already linked to independent states?

New Kurdish push for independence

Kurdistan President Massaud Barzani recently declared his intention to hold a referendum on independence from Iraq. Barzani stated that “everything that’s happened recently shows that it’s the right of Kurdistan to achieve independence.”

Barzani added “From now on, we won’t hide that that’s our goal. Iraq is effectively partitioned now. Are we supposed to stay in this tragic situation the country’s living? It’s not me who will decide on independence. It’s the people. We’ll hold a referendum and it’s a matter of months.”

Kurdistan Head of the Department of Foreign Relations, Falah Mustafa Bakir, warned “there is a new reality and that requires a new policy and a new approach.”

Meanwhile, for Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman, the Kurdistan Regional Government’s High Representative to the UK, it “would take a lot for Kurdistan to remain part of Iraq.”

The statement from Barzani had the United States and some Western powers scrambling. White House spokesman Josh Earnest stated “The fact is that we continue to believe that Iraq is stronger if it is united.”

US Secretary of State, John Kerry had reportedly told Barzani “‘whatever your aspirations are for your future, your interests now in the near-term are for a stable, sovereign and unified Iraq.”

Even as some major powers warm to the idea of Kurdish independence, they have treaded carefully around the diplomatic line. As talk of Kurdish independence accelerated, Philip Hammond, UK Defence Secretary, towed the same line as the US, affirming that the government’s position was to keep Iraq as a unified state.

Yet Iraq has failed to be united and will never achieve such a feat especially with the new reality of the Islamic State.

Some politicians have been more vocal in supporting Kurdish independence, in an exclusive interview with Rudaw, UK Labour MP, Mike Gapes, stated “It would be better for the terms and timing and degree of separation to be negotiated and agreed but ultimately the Kurds have the right to self-determination.  The UK and US should respect the will of the people expressed in a democratic referendum.”

Other analysts have warned of the dangers of any separation, Peter Harling of the International Crisis Group, told Rudaw “the Kurds are now in a situation where self-determination becomes less a function of their own course of action than Iraq’s general breakdown. This may reduce the price to pay for secession, ultimately. But that price remains steep given the remarkable benefits the Kurds currently derive from their relations with Baghdad, Ankara and Teheran. Actual partition likely would negatively affect all three.”

Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi warned a referendum on the independence of Iraq’s Kurdish region would lead to a “catastrophic” break-up of the country, yet the same Arab leaders have vehemently supported Palestine inspite of decades of bloodshed.

Obsessed with the unity of Iraq, it seems that the US and regional powers have missed the pieces of Iraq already lying broken on the floor.

First Published On: OpenDemocracy

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc

Enjoy your natural right to statehood or prolong agony with an unrepentant Baghdad?

Leave a reply

The current crisis in Iraq is anything but new. The past nine years have been shrouded in sectarianism, civil war, political bickering, shaky unity governments, animosity, distrust and agreements that were not worth the paper they were written on.

The Unite States helped mask some of the realities by acting as the crutches to support an Iraq that was broken and could not stand on its own two feet.

On the other hand, the Kurds chose to re-join the new Iraq after years of isolation on the premise of a partnership based on a voluntary union.

The Kurdish leadership on many occasions were the key intermediaries in a bitter cycle of violence between the newly-empowered Shiites and disenfranchised Sunnis. Key negotiations, initiatives and interventions from the Kurds often resulted in pivotal breakthroughs, notwithstanding the important role that Kurdish security forces paid in restoring stability in the south.

The Kurds, owed to their kingmaker role were the beneficiaries of a number of concessions and countless promises from Baghdad.

Here is the problem, what good is a comprehensive constitution, democratic frameworks, concessions and promises if the end product is failed implementation, by-passed legislature, half-hearted unity and empty gestures?

The Kurds find themselves in a position of deep mistrust with a Baghdad that continues policies that are detriment to the development of Kurdistan, of reconciliation and brotherhood.

The centralist tenancies of al-Maliki are not new, this was a frequent criticism of his first term in charge.

Despite reservations and widespread mistrust of his party, somewhat regrettably al-Maliki was given a lifeline and a brittle coalition with al-Iraqiya and the Kurds broke a world record for the formation of a government.

Ironically, as al-Maliki has come under more pressure from Sunnis and Kurds, he has conversely grown in power. He has successfully monopolised power, combined several powerful posts under the disguise of temporary cover and all but broken the coalition beyond repair.

Barzani’s ultimatum

The Kurds after playing the patient game and seeing a lack of change in Baghdad are now at a critical juncture were they dare not stay idle.

Do the Kurds continue to exhaust energy in the new Iraq, when clearly the basis for new Iraq is non-existent? After nine years of effort and perseverance, the Kurds cannot continue to ignore the writing on the wall. Iraq is not united, it’s not democratic, constitutional article are no binding and parties such as Maliki clearly do not believe in a true partnership with the Kurds.

Kurdistan President Massoud Barzani has made a number of bold remarks around the plight of Iraq, the critical political crisis and has warned that the Kurds will not tolerate a return to centralisation or dictatorship.

He repeated his stance in an interview with AP, where he warned that if a positive breakthrough was not achieved by local elections in September then he will turn to the Kurdish people for a decision and thus a referendum on independence.

Barzani has been critical of al-Maliki and Baghdad in the past, but simultaneous events has pushed the Kurdish leadership well beyond the limits of passive observation or tolerance.

Barzani’s visit to Turkey in recent weeks followed a keynote visit to Washington where met with U.S. President Barack Obama and Joe Biden. No doubt at the top of the agenda was Barzani’s growing worry over the consolidation of power in Baghdad and his message to his counterparts in Turkey and US was that the Kurds had reached breaking-point and were serious about threats to secede if the foundations that were a proviso for re-joining the new Iraq were continually disregarded.

Some critics viewed Barzani’s remarks as a mere ploy to extract concession from al-Maliki rather than any real threat to secede. Such views are narrow-minded and lack conjecture.

The Kurds have already received countless concessions and have already had many promises around power-sharing, resolution of disputed territories and hydrocarbon laws. More concessions alone are in fact just the tonic that the Kurds should avoid.

Empty promises are worthless as are positive agreements that are no adopted. What the Kurds must demand of al-Maliki and Baghdad in the key weeks and months ahead is real action, practical steps and tangible outcomes.

The visit of influential Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr to Erbil and growing disillusionment of some Shiite factions on top of an already marginalised and bitter Sunni population shows that the current crisis is more deep-rooted than ever before.

Re-writing the wrongs of history

Kurdistan has a fundamental and unmolested right to two clear options. Either a truly democratic, federal and balanced Iraq or outright independence.

As the largest ethnic group in the world without a state, subject to a cruel and selfish partition of their lands and decades of repression, if any nation had a right to determine its destiny it would be the Kurds.

While other countries, some with populations numbering in the thousands and others gripped with immense poverty and a lack of infrastructure dot the global horizon, the Kurds are warned to tread carefully or that their time has not come.

After the end of the First World War, the concept of self-determination was the overriding principle of US president Woodrow Wilson that he imposed on the League of Nations and the Middle East.

For imperial interests at the time, Kurdistan was the only major nation not to be granted statehood.

Self-determination is one of the key international charters and by which repression, imperialism and subjugation is eradicated and free will is attained.

Some claim that Kurdistan does not have the infrastructure or conditions for statehood but just how much infrastructure does Palestine or Kosovo have compared to the Kurds?

Kurdistan is washed with immense amounts of oil, with a booming economy, a vibrant population and all the trappings of any state. It is a key strategic hub of the Middle East and with the influence and standing to play a key part in the evolution of the Middle East.

However, double standards of foreign are something that the Kurds can no longer accept. Kosovo was granted independence as special case where foreign powers had ruled that Serbia had forfeited the right of sovereignty due to their treatment of the Kosovars.

If anyone has forfeited the right to have any say on Kurdistan is Arabs and Iraq. After decades of brutal Arabisation, destruction and systematic repression, the Kurds deserve to be applauded for single-handedly standing up to one of the most powerful dictators of recent times.

Have the Kurds spilled countless blood, tears and tragedy to now return to centralist rule in Iraq or to have terms dictated upon them by other groups?

No Turk, Persian or Arab can intimidate the Kurds any longer. In reality, even Turkey has accepted that Kurdish statehood is not only a natural and inevitable reality but that Turkey itself may benefit from such a development.

The Middle East is in turmoil as governments jostle for power and influence. Turkey’s rapid decline of relations with Syria, Iran and ever increasingly Iraq, puts the Kurds in a strong position to be at forefront of shaping the Middle East socially, politically and economically.

At the first seismic shifting of the Middle East after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the Kurds were sidelined and had to painfully endure decades of suffering for their chance to rewrite the wrongs of history. They can ill-afford to be passengers as the evolutionary trains darts past this time around.

Way ahead in Iraq

Barzani has warned Maliki before, but it was the first time that a real timetable was set for action.

If Maliki is sincere about power-sharing and partnership with the Kurds, then he doesn’t need weeks to show his intentions.

However, even if Maliki does change his tune, it will be temporary at best. Arab nationalists such as Maliki will never want what best for Kurdistan, only what is best for himself and their party.

There is no threat of Iraq’s disintegration when it has already happened. A crisis between Kurdistan and Baghdad is just tip of the iceberg. Deadly bombings serve as a daily reminder that bloody sectarianism is not a thing of the past, with Sunni digging their heels and ready to battle for their slice of the cake, it begs the question of just what part of the new Iraq would any Kurd want?

Regional powers have continually served their interests at the expense of Kurdistan, it is time for Kurdistan to be selfish and solely focus on motions that exclusively serve their national interests.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc.

Discussion on UN decision on Kosovo Independence

Leave a reply

The murky distinction between the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity – As UN rules Kosovar unilateral independence legal, a new precedent is set for nationalist struggles

The secession of Kosovo from Serbia concluded the bitter and bloody breakup of Yugoslavia. However, the onset of independence for Europe’s newest member of the family has been the most contentious.

Kosovo Albanians clearly suffered great atrocities under Serbian rule, leading to NATO intervention and UN protection thereafter. Despite strong opposition from a number of countries including Russia and China, Kosovar’s determination for statehood was undeterred resulting in a unilateral declaration of independence in February 2008.

Although, now recognised by over 69 UN member states, the issue of the legality of the Kosovar independence, facilitated with the support of its American and British allies, has stirred tensions and debate ever since; and crucially has initiated a sense of weariness for a number of countries with their own separatist headaches.

The recent ruling by the International Court of Justice, the first case of secession raised before the World Court, declared that Kosovo’s declaration of independence was in fact legal and did not contravene international law.

This was a highly significant development for Kosovo in its quest for full recognition and UN member status, but it also carries significant ramifications for future cases.

Key global powers in support of Kosovar’s rights have continuously pointed to the notion that Kosovo was a special case, that Serbia’s brutal campaign had forfeited their sovereignty over the province and, as a separate ethnicity, the Kosovar’s were free to choose not to reside with their Serbian counterparts.

However, no matter how this is masked, clearly a strong precedence has been set for nationalist struggles across the world. Furthermore, this is another demonstration of the stark double standards employed by western powers that plagues the notion of a new world order and the ideals of freedom and democracy that the West is desperately trying to promote.

Nowhere in the world is the case of Kosovo more significant than in Kurdistan. The similarities are striking. Ethnic Albanians have suffered under the hands of occupiers and dictatorships as have the Kurds. Albanian’s pose a minority in a number of countries, including Serbia, Macedonia and Greece as do Kurds in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey.

However, while Albanians may have suffered great crimes, their existence as a distinct ethnicity has never been denied and they have an independent state in the form of Albania. Not only was Kurdistan forcibly assimilated, but Kurds in Iraq suffered great campaigns of genocide under the noses of the West; and in Turkey they have never been officially recognised as having a separate identity.

To date, the Kurds still form the largest stateless nation in the world. This begs the question of the criteria for judging the merit of nationalist struggles and just who has the authority to determine and endorse such moves.

Clearly in the case of Kosovo, many countries still refuse to recognise their independence including the veto-holding powers of Russia and China. It was the ardent support of the US and key EU states that was all that was necessary.

The concept of self-determination is not new and was first championed by the then US president Woodrow Wilson after World War I. From colonialism and the fall of great empires, suddenly appeared numerous new countries in the international arena.

Even today, nationalist struggles rage in many countries including Russia, Spain and Georgia.

The issue of self-determination is evidently complicated as it in direct contrast to the principle of territorial integrity. By international law, nations have the right to full sovereignty and the enforcement of their borders but as highlighted in the past, international law can be misconstrued and misapplied based on the strategic goals of global players.

The Kurds, like numerous other nations that encompassed the Ottoman Empire, were afforded the right of self-determination under the Treat of Sevres but somewhat ironically within a few short years, the Kurds were scrubbed-off the map by the Treaty of Lausanne.

No Kurd was ever consulted about the division of its land or its people and the new borders that they were suddenly bound to. This was the decision of global powers and regional actors on the chessboard who held the Kurdish population as inferior pawns that could be ruled and submerged. Once great amounts of oil were discovered in Kurdistan this was the final nail in its quest for statehood as it’s carve up intensified and powers sought to reap the benefits of its immense wealth.

Ironically, although the Kurds have steadily risen in prominence and strategic standing in recent years, any notion of independence would gain no support from the US or other major powers due to geopolitical considerations. By the same token, it is doubtful whether it was purely legal considerations that saw the US support the secession of Kosovo or if it was strategic reasons.

More ironically, the same geopolitical constraints that the West allude to in justifying why Kurdish independence would create instability and a nightmare scenario was created by the West themselves.

Evidently, anarchy would ensue if the principle of self-determination was vaguely applied to all cases. This would amount to great global instability and further bloodshed. However, self-determination can only be applied based on its own merits and not double standards.

The basis of any nationalist struggle is primarily ethnicity. Any established nation has the right to unmolested existence, to decide its own affairs and to express cultural freedom. No nation has the right to submerge, rule-over or deny outright another nation.

These fundamental principles are one of the main reasons why the League of Nations and later the UN was created and why many wars have been waged against rogue regimes and dictators trespassing international charters.

No case demonstrates the lack of international standards than that of Turkey. With a highly nationalistic driven constitution and an oppressive military existence, the Kurds were historically sidelined or merely referred to as “Mountain Turks” and even today do not enjoy key rights granted by UN charters.

The best judge of a nationality is history, culture and heritage. Kurds have existed in the areas that they reside for thousands of years and have been recognised as a distinct nationality throughout history, with their own language, culture, customs and traditions.

In the example of Turkey, the Kurds could benefit immensely from a peaceful and prosperous coexistence with their Turkish counterparts and with it possibly the carrot of EU membership. However, this unison by the virtue of international law must be based on voluntary association, democratic rights, culture freedoms and an equal status.

It was highly significant that Turkey was one of the first countries to recognise Kosovar independence. It was also its flagship of Turkish Cypriot rights that led to the invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and the establishment of a state in Northern Cyprus that was widely condemned.

The Turkish Cypriot right to self-rule and peaceful existence was the vehicle for Turkish intervention. However, what the Turkish Cypriots desire is hardly clear given that they became outnumbered by Turkish settlers brought by the Turkish government.

The principle of “self-determination” is best explained in the words itself. However, by clear contradiction, it is still obvious that owing to the colonial mentalities of Western powers, it is not “self” that determines such a principle but “others”.

As the old English saying goes “what is good for the goose is good for gander”.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Online Opinion, eKurd, Peyamner, Various Misc.

Kosovo Marks Further Double Standards in the Application of International Criterion

Leave a reply

“What is good for the goose is good for the gander” English Proverb

On Sunday 17th February, the parliament of Kosovo unanimously approved a declaration of independence from Serbia, marking the end of the dissolution of Yugoslavia and with it the realisation of one Europe’s worst kept secrets.

Despite strong objections from Serbia, Russia and a handful of EU countries and vitally a lack of a UN resolution, it was long anticipated that Kosovo would declare unilateral independence in early 2008.

As the streets of Pristina were overfilled with joy and excitement, just across the small province, the Serbian dominated parts witnessed much violence, anger and upheaval.

The controversial motion sets an ominous precedence for separatist movements across the globe, in spite of EU claims that Kosovo was a ‘special case’. Serbia withdrew ambassadors to a number of countries that supported Kosovar independence and denounced the proclamation of a ‘false state’. Serbia was adamant that the sovereignty of Belgrade over Kosovo was guaranteed by UN and international law.

Clearly, the example of Kosovo shows that statehood can be achieved with the support of key countries across the world. Even without the advent of a UN resolution and particularly support from Russia and China, fervent US support was all that was necessary.

Russia accused the EU of encouraging global separatism and was equally vocal in its criticism of the US in proceedings.

Unsurprisingly, the UN Security Council could not agree on a response to Kosovo’s proclamation but declaration of independence was quickly recognised by US, Britain, Germany and numerous others.

With their own separatist headaches, a number of countries including Russia, Cyprus and Spain refused to recognise the newest member of the European family.

Apprehension by those opposed to the unilateral pursuit of statehood is understandable. After all, the definition of a credible separatist movement from those seeking unlawful division of a sovereign country is proving a very fine line.

Perhaps the most ironic recognition of Kosovo was by Turkey, who was never an avid supporter but its ‘thumbs-up’ to the new state was symbolic nevertheless. Undoubtedly, Kosovo has paradoxical implications for Turkey. On the one hand, it strengthens their claim on the rogue state of Northern Cyprus which they have held by force since 1974 despite no official international recognition. On the other hand, it undermines their bloody war with Kurdish separatists that they have relentlessly tried to quell and have even invaded a neighbouring country under the banner of preserving national security.

The old saying, ‘what is good for the goose is good for the gander’ cannot be discounted.   The situation begs a critical question, as Kosovo and by Turkish implications, Northern Cyprus are justified separatist causes then how can 15 millions Kurds with a rich culture and history dating back thousands of years in the same region be classified as terrorists by the same brush?.

It only goes to highlight the importance of perception. Kosovar independence was endorsed by the US and other powers because its people ‘deserved’ freedom and unmolested sovereignty and by virtue that Serbia had forfeited the claim to the province after a highly-publicised genocide that was conducted in the late 1990’s that culminated in the region becoming a UN administered zone, protected by NATO.

However, the similarities with the Kurds by that same token stretches even deeper. As Kosovar’s suffered under a dictatorship, so have the Kurds for many decades under multiple regimes. Kurds form a great minority in Turkey, Iran and Iraq as Albanians do in Serbia, Greece and Macedonia. Kosovo Albanians also border their ethnic brethren as do the Kurds in four adjacent countries.

However, whilst Albanians already have a country of their own (Albania), the Kurds have nothing. The struggle to establish a ‘Kosovar’ identity in the aftermath of statehood is well documented. Kosovar’s have yet to build a distinctive national image with a lack of an official flag, army and national anthem. After all, it was the greater Albanian flag that was ubiquitous on every corner of Pristina.

The tale of double-crossings and double-standards has been the bane of modern Kurdish history. Forcefully divided, a national of 40 million with its own flag, language, history and distinct national identity has never received the support of global powers.

If the principle of self-determination as touted by former US president Woodrow Wilson or the modern model used for Kosovo is applied equivocally then Kurdistan would have been independent long ago.

The key issue is not whether the Kurds deserve independence (in the same manner as Kosovar’s obviously do), anyone in their rightful mind will not doubt this, even the strongest of foes but it is the loss that some global powers would have by employing these same principles to the Kurds.

For one, the Kurds have masses of oil which was a precursor to their separation in the first place. However, it is the imperialist ploys of the past that continue to make mockery of the new world order.

Unfortunately, the political chess board is full of loop-holes and shallow interpretations. Each pawn will only move in a way afforded by other seemingly superior pieces. Whilst the Kurds advocating even cultural rights are deemed terrorists for defending their identity, other groups are endorsed in the same quest.

Whilst global powers rushed to assist a population of 2 million in Kosovo, millions of Kurds have been the victims of brutal persecution and chemical gassing, while the same advocates of a righteous world turned a blind eye – seemingly to quench their strategic thirst that made the Kurds indispensable by-products.

At least Iraqi Kurdistan can take some heart for the new benchmark set by Kosovo and perhaps even a few tips on Kosovar marketing and systematic approach to achieving their goals.

However, even in the days of so-called equality and globalisation, out dated colonial philosophies are widely in circulation. If Kosovar’s are worthy of independence and freedom then based on what international criteria are separatists in Romania, Georgia and Spain classified as any different?

Obviously, not every nation or group without merit can simply demand independence, this would amount to absolute anarchy across the world but it just goes to show the vague and ambiguous international criterion for assessing the eligibility of statehood. In essence it is simply derived on factors determined to suit the parties around the table.

Ironically, with Kosovo now inhibiting a population of 10% Serbs, the seeds for future conflict and instability have already been sewn. Almost immediately following celebrations in the Kosovar capital, angry Serbs ransacked two border crossings linking Kosovo and Serbia with NATO forces subsequently cutting off Serbs in Kosovo from mainland Serbia.

Remarkably, what is now emerging on the ground is nothing short of a second Kosovo. So what if Serbs in Kosovo were now ethnically cleansed and systemically persecuted, what would the international community then do?

In the case of the Kurds, due to their rich lands and strategic position, independence would only have the same support if global powers would make particular benefit from such a move.

When the newly created state is more strategically significant than its former occupier, former occupiers would be simply powerless to stop the state attaining independence.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.

As Kosovo Moves Closer to Independence, Struggle for Self-determination Takes a New Twist

Leave a reply

The Serbs have long-considered Kosovo as a cradle of their heritage and nationalist struggle. However, it is ironic that as the legend of the Serbian defeat against Ottoman forces in 1389 in this small province gave it almost a mystical significance to Serbian nationalism, the recent drive towards full independence by Kosovo Albanians, marks the distinct end of the old Yugoslavia and Serbian imperialism.

In a further twist of irony, it was in Kosovo where the seeds for nationalist bloodshed were planted by former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, resulting in a costly ethnically- enthused civil war and the disintegration of Yugoslavia in the 1990’s.

Under UN administration, since NATO bombing halted Serbian forces brutally quelling an insurgency in 1998, the Kosovo independence motion has gained firm momentum. 

This week after a deadline for international mediation efforts passed, the EU announced virtual unity on Kosovo. Crucially supported by the US administration, it is widely except that leaders of Kosovo’s Albanian majority would declare independence before May 2008 or even sooner.

Serbia, supported by Russia, has vehemently opposed independence. This week Russia warned that unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) could set off a vicious ripple affect across the Balkans and beyond.

However, calls for more discussions were seemingly deemed pointless by EU and the US. Mediators from the United States, European Union and Russia announced in a report to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, that months of talks had found no compromise on whether Kosovo should be independent or just self-ruled. The outcome was to virtually place the matter in the hands of the EU and crucially not the UN, making a resolution unlikely.

This paved the way to implement a roadmap orchestrated by United Nations envoy Martti Ahtisaari, which proposes a scheduled transition to independence.

Doubters fear that such a movement will only add venom to separatist campaigns across the world. After all, no resistance or national movement is launched without a solid basis or popular support. Why should the situation of a couple of millions Kosovo Albanians be any different?

Russia is dead-against the motion primarily as it would ignite tensions in Chechnya and other volatile restive provinces in its borders. Georgia is watchful over Abkhazia, where Cyprus, the main EU country to oppose independence, is deeply concerned fearing that it may promote a degree of legitimacy to the rogue state of Northern Cyprus.

Serbia may well launch a campaign to annex the Serb province of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Albania or Macedonia may attempt to form a union with Kosovo. The unpredictability and potential instability this brings to the region can well be off-set by the carrot of future EU membership for the likes of Serbia, however beyond the region, no country as much as Iraqi Kurdistan will be looking at the situation more avidly.

After all, Kurdish culture, history and heritage run thousands of years before the Kosovo Albanians. The population of the Kurds in Iraq alone is 6 million and close to 40 million beyond. With all the markings for a state of their own, Kurdistan was selfishly carved amongst highly oppressive regimes and the Kurdish question was left to rot like an unwanted corpse outside the United Nations and left to linger in the streets of international diplomacy.

Perhaps, double standards were common and almost excepted in the days gone by. However, this is a new age and Turkey in particular, remaining suspiciously quite over the Kosovo debate, will be taking firm notes.

If the United States and the EU can endorse and encourage a nationalist movement to safeguard the security of a minority then it should have no choice but to support a Kurdish state, oppressed on a much larger scale. Clearly, any logical and wise observer can see that the time is not right to declare independence in the age of such great hostility by the Turks, Persians and Arabs, but the international community should at a minimum champion the right of the Kurds to statehood and crucially setup and implement a similar roadmap it has so passionately supported in Kosovo and Palestine.

At a minimum, looming Kosovo independence sets a yard-stick for political struggles and adds a new dimension to the right of self-determination.

The Kurds around the world should take great heart form this debacle and celebrate Kosovan independence as much as the Albanians.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Hewler Post (Kurdish), Peyamner, Various Misc.