Thank you, Harry. You are right, I think, about the prospects for a 'united Kurdistan'.
In Iraq the Kurds number about 5 million (18% of the Iraqi population). Iran has about 5 million (7%), and Turkey about 14 million (20%). This data from the CIA World Factbook. I was surprised by the size and percentage of the Turkish contingent. The Kurds at various times have fought with all three countries over the issue of independence, and are hyper sensitive to any resurgence of irredentism among the Kurds. None will allow the creation of an 'united Kurdistan' as it means ceding territory, territory in which, among other problems, live non-Kurdish people. Not only will each oppose a 'united Kurdistan', but each will also oppose the formation of any 'local Kurdistan', even if limited to the territory of the other countries, as such a local Kurdistan is almost sure to provide a platform for agitation to form the larger transnational united Kurdistan. Those who advocate this as part of the 'solution' to the larger mess the US has created in Iraq do now understand the region, and do not understand that the attempt to create any form of sovereign Kurdistan will only aggravate the problems the US -- and now the Iraqis -- are facing. It is going to be interesting to see how the Syrians and Iranians react to the expected proposal from the US to convene a regional conference to address the Iraqi mess. Having antagonized and demonized nearly all the countries in the region, we now turn to them to clean up our mess. It will be fun to see the White House spinmeisters try to language this one <grin>. Not that they shirk from even the most daunting tasks. Cheers, Lawry -----Original Message----- From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'pete'; [email protected] Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW: Map of Middle East Good piece, Lawry! Also interesting is that there are large numbers of Kurds in Iran and Turkey, contiguous to the Iraqi Kurds. It would make sense to let these three groups to unite in one country - except it will never happen. Harry ********************************* Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ********************************* >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >Lawrence de Bivort >Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 10:15 AM >To: 'pete'; [email protected] >Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: Map of Middle East > >There is no international law that assures an ethnic group its >own territory or nation, contiguous or not. And I would guess >that the vast majority of ethnic groups do not have their own >nation. Some of them may want their own territory, but a right >to such has to be established. Prior legitimate possession is >one such argument. The problem, of course, is that groups tend >to assert claims to territories that at some point in their >history they once controlled, and so, by referring to >different time periods, the various claims of groups overlap >significantly with the claims of others. Quite apart from the >issue of sovereignty for ethnic groups, this matter of >overlaps reduces the viability of the historical claim. The >doctrine of self-determination is primarily useful against a >colonial power; it does not clarify the problem of >overlapping, time-sensitive claims. > >The Kurds have no intrinsic right to a state of their own. >Were they to advance such a claim, they would have to reckon >with the sovereignty of Iraq, Iran, and Turkey. I would say >that the idea of a Kurdish state is in fact dead, though they >will be able to achieve a measure of autonomy within Iraq. If >the Kurds were to pronounce themselves independent, and Iraq >not able to enforce its sovereignty there due to the present >control of the country by the US, it is sure to be challenged >successfully in the future. >My guess is that the Kurds are smart enough to realize this >and will withstand the blandishments of outsiders, and settle >for cooperative relations with the Iraq government, and a >significant measure of autonomy, as negotiated jointly by the >government and Kurdish representatives. > >Cheers, >Lawry > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of pete >Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 12:51 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: Map of Middle East > > >On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Christoph Reuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Interesting. So the Kingdom of Israel existed only in a very short >>period some 3000 years ago. Hmm, what does this say about the >>legitimacy of the "law of return"...? > >You will notice that in all that time, the Kurds never had >self-rule, let alone an empire. Does that mean we should >decide they don't exist, and have no right to a contiguous homeland? > > >_______________________________________________ >Futurework mailing list >[email protected] >http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > >_______________________________________________ >Futurework mailing list >[email protected] >http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
