The Globe and Mail (Canada)
Saturday
Why we shouldn't recognize the Kurdish independence vote
by DOUG SAUNDERS, Staff
Should we welcome a country called Kurdistan to the community of
nations? That question, first uttered seriously a century ago, has
suddenly become more urgent. On Monday, the Kurdish people who make up
half the population of northern Iraq voted overwhelmingly in an
advisory referendum (92 per cent) to secede from the U.S.-backed Iraqi
regime and form a new country.
The Kurdish vote immediately provoked a furious response from Baghdad
- a response that could lead to a violent confrontation - and a
confused range of responses from countries that have otherwise
supported the Kurdish people.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responded as other leaders of countries
that have struggled with secession movements did: "As a Quebecker, I'm
very sensitive to other countries weighing in on internal decisions
around the future of a country or separation questions," he said on
Monday, and declined to take a stand.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded by ordering his
ministers and officials not to comment, according to Reuters, despite
the fact that Israelis have often supported Kurds, who are in a
position not unlike Jews before 1948. It could well be that Mr.
Netanyahu suddenly realized that Kurds now look more like Palestinians
after 1948. As such, he joined a chorus of silence around the Kurdish
vote.
In other words, a lot of friends of the Kurds have become less
friendly when it comes down to an actual real-life Kurdistan. That is
not to say that endorsing a Kurdish state is the right decision today.
As a rule, ethnic nationhood is a terrible idea - an idea that,
after it sprang into popularity in the late 19th century, was
responsible for many of the worst atrocities and horrors of the 20th.
Because no territory has ever been truly multi-ethnic, nationhood
tends to multiply, rather than end, the violent repression of ethnic,
linguistic and religious groups. And it tends to press its populations
into homogeneity and away from pluralism, the opposite of what makes
nations succeed.
As Canadians have learned the hard way, it is far better to encourage
the formation of multi-ethnic federations with special distinct
society rights for regionally concentrated minorities.
That's what the Kurds won for themselves in northern Iraq; it's what
they were nearly granted in their territory in southeastern Turkey a
decade ago, before Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan turned
angrily against them in his shift away from democracy.
There are exceptions to the rule - cases where the physical and
political threat to a minority group is so devastating and total and
potentially genocidal that the only viable solution is the creation of
a new state, in which they are a majority. Ethnic states have become
tragic necessities exactly three times in history: The creation of
Armenia in 1918, of Israel in 1948 and of Kosovo between 1999 and
2008.
Kurds, unlike Britons or Catalans or Californians, do have some
compelling reasons to seek independence. They have been victims of
terrible mistreatment by successive Iraqi regimes, including a
genocidal chemicalwarfare murder of 100,000 at the hands of Saddam
Hussein. They face genuine peril today.
But a solution to the Kurdish crisis would have to extend far beyond
northern Iraq (where Kurds, thanks to oil wealth, have already won a
stable semi-autonomy that ought to be preserved). The situation of
Kurds in Syria and Turkey is dire, as their militias were the most
important fighters against Bashar al-Assad's Syrian regime and against
the self-proclaimed Islamic State. Now that Russia has effectively
ensured a civilwar victory for Mr. Assad, Kurdish communities in Syria
face a frightening future. So do Turkey's Kurds, who are subject to a
terrible war of vengeance from Ankara (as well as the sometimes
extreme actions of their own militias).
A wider Kurdistan carved from Kurdish-plurality portions of Syria,
Turkey, Iraq and Iran might seem the obvious outcome - but Kurds
haven't sought that, because it would be unimaginable in any
real-world Middle East. Like most such solutions, attempting it would
cause far greater devastation and death than its existence would
ameliorate.
And that is the fundamental calculus of secession: Will it create more
misery than it solves? In the case of the Kurds, at the moment we are
better off supporting other, non-national solutions.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__beta.theglobeandmail.com_opinion_why-2Dwe-2Dshouldnt-2Drecognize-2Dthe-2Dkurdish-2Dindependence-2Dvote_article36432946_-3Fref-3Dhttp-3A__www.theglobeandmail.com-26&d=DwIBaQ&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=LVw5zH6C4LHpVQcGEdVcrQ&m=fuoylkFOoGHVEyq1JpZck4lYyn5hXP2g2vAT_6Lr1VY&s=-BdEfORiXHzkmocTRcbtYZSVg8PuA_ozcOcZXIzXJ84&e=
