Lawry,
I don't know why you and Harry can be so certain that the Kurds will never
establish a nation-state. In order to establish even the beginnings of
statehood there has to be another more subtle factor which is not mentioned
in your four criteria mentioned below. I'll mention this a little later.
But in the meantime, does anybody think that the 240-odd countries that
have obtained recognition as nation-states by the United Nations really are
nation-states in the historical sense as sketched out in the Treaty of
Westphalia of 1648 which, by and large, established the concept? What the
Westphalian concept amounts to is that if a region has a sufficient sense
of cultural "togetherness" that its citizens will fight like mad to
preserve itself -- with a consequence of widespread civilian deaths and
economic destruction whether it succeeds or not -- then it deserves the
definition. It then becomes altogether more tidy for the contiguous regions
concerned. Westphalian nation-statehood was an entirely Western European
concept borne of centuries of incessant warfare which was, at that time,
threatening to get completely out of hand and far beyond preceding notions
of chivalric warfare fought by small cliques of rich people able to afford
mercenary armies. What the Westphalian Treaty said was: "For the sake of
stopping all this warfare, let's respect the cultural identity of any
region that is prepared to fight hard to defend what it clearly regards as
its territorial boundary."
From then onwards the concept of nation-statehood solidified three quite
new ideas which were already developing in embryo :
1. The formation of strict national boundaries;
2. Standing armies;
3. Governments fostered what we now call economic growth for the sake of
wider taxation (to pay for their armies) and, in particular, military
innovation (which also depended on freedom for scientific research,
hitherto repressed by the Medieval Church).
In strictly Westphalian terms, most of the nation-states that have
registered with the United Nations (itself of uncertain future) are not
nation-states at all, but merely of populations which have been manipulated
by neo-nationalistic politicians living in regions without much by way of
resources that other countries wanted to grab.
So what does make a *real* nation-state as occurred in Western Europe over
the past three centuries? It was the rise of small cliques of independent
thinkers and, in particular, small groups of individuals who adopted the
mode of inductive reasoning and scientific experimentation as most
precisely defined only a little earlier by Francis Bacon (1561-1626). Thus,
in all the proto-nation-states of Western Europe we find that small
scientific societies were founded along the lines of Royal Society in this
country. All to-be nation-states were of populations in which new
technological methods were fast diffusing within their own predominant
language group. In shorthand this is called the Western Enlightenment.
So where does this leave the Kurds? Who knows? -- we simply don't know
enough about what is going on in the region. (Because trouble is not
occurring there, the Western press don't send many journalists there. I
haven't read any accounts for many months.) We know that the two chief
Kurdish political factions have developed into a Western-type sense of
government-and-opposition rather than mutual warfare, we know that
education is given immense importance and we also know that trade and
science are encouraged, their economy is growing and that religion is
relegated to a subsidiary place in government (the essential
other-side-of-the-coin factor in the rise of all the original
nation-states). The region of northern Iraq is the only largely peaceful
region in the Middle East, has a peshmerga army which is feared by Turkey
and Iran (or else "Kurdistan" would have been invaded years ago) -- as
Saddam Hissein had previously feared it -- and is still surviving despite
its unhelpful terrain. Whether it will survive in the longer-term future
against Turkey, Iran and a (likely) Shia-dominated Iraq remains to be seen
but I would rate the odds far higher than both you and Harry.
We need to know a great deal more whether there is, in the Kurdish region,
those small but supremely important nuclei of indviduals around which their
populations pivot and coalesce, recognising that they contain the kernal of
the matter. Such small nuclei of outstanding individuals not only enabled
the nation-states of Western Europe to come into existence from 1648 and
onwards but also subsequently to re-establish nations which were in danger
of becoming extinct. I am thinking of Israel, Armenia and China. (China as
we know it today owes its development almost completely to the return of
only a dozen of so of brilliant ex-pats from elsewhere in Asia. It would
not have gone extinct, of course, but would probably have fractured into
further Taiwan-sized chunks by now after the decline of the previous
dictatorship.)
Don't be so certain about Kurdistan. Turkey and Egypt are fast slipping
backwards into Medieval religionism undoing a great deal of what Ataturk
and Nasser respectively were able to achieve. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon
and the rest of Iraq, are still poised between modernism and religion,
between secular politicians and mullahs. The preliminary signs are that
Kurdistan, along with the modernising Emirates of Bahrein, Qatar, Dubai and
perhaps Abu Dhai may well be successful nations (presently accorded the
term "nation-state") in 20 years' time long after after those other Middle
East countries might have decayed further into medieval bigotry and poverty
which could no more be termed nation-states as some countries in Africa,
central Asia or South America are already supposed to be (according to the
United Nations register).
Keith Hudson
At 16:52 30/11/2006 -0500, you wrote:
I omitted an important matter, here.
Under international law, there are two other principles relevant to
territory and sovereignty.
1. To claim statehood, a country must meet four criteria:
a. Control of land
b. Control of population
c. Ability to govern
d. Able to exercise international relations
Sovereignty is not dependent on the diplomatic recognition of other states.
2. It is illegal to seize territory of other countries, and such conquest
does not convey or provide the basis for a claim of sovereignty over the
seized territory. Indeed, conquest and occupation only impose on the
conquering state a series of well-defined obligations to safe-guard the
well-being and rights of the local population of the occupied territory.
Sorry for the omission. I have several reports I am kicking out the door.
Cheers,
Lawry
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lawrence de Bivort
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 1:15 PM
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
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.2/559 - Release Date: 30/11/2006
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.3/561 - Release Date: 01/12/2006
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
